For several weeks, the establishment media have been printing articles designed to weaken Mitt Romney on immigration, holding out the Hispanic vote as a carrot. While not as similar as the PIIPP articles, they all have the same components: an oh-so-earnest concern that Romney's supposed tough stance on immigration is hurting him with Hispanics, a suggestion that he support Marco Rubio's version of the DREAM Act or some form of comprehensive immigration reform, and so on.
Are there any circumstances in which you can see the media offering good advice to Mitt Romney? Of course not: the media continues to be what it was four and more years ago: a virtual extension of the Obama campaign. Those media sources offering such articles are what are called "concern trolls". The media supports massive and illegal immigration. They might realize how a more aggressive Romney could affect Obama on the issue, or they might realize how weakening Mitt Romney on immigration would help Obama.
One other feature many of these articles have in common is GOP pollster Whit Ayres. A search for Google News at post time for Whit Ayres Hispanic reveals several articles in which he acts the role of Allan Hoffenblum (see that link). He's apparently doing that as an advisor for the Hispanic Leadership Network, which is part of the American Action Network (do see both those links). His given title varies; he's also identified as an independent pollster and working for North Star Opinion Research and Resurgent Republic. He was identified here as "[someone who has] also served as pollster and advisor to Gov. Bill Haslam and Sens. Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker and former Sen. Bill Frist".
Whatever his ever-changing title, he's a busy bee:Title: "Damage Control/After alienating Hispanics, Mitt Romney needs to mend fences. Marco Rubio's immigration plan could help"
Author: Ronald Brownstein at National Journallink

While Latinos are disappointed about the economy and disenchanted with Obama for not stressing immigration reform, "Republicans have to adopt a tone that clearly views Hispanics as a part of a center-right coalition and be very aggressive in their efforts to reach out," says GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who advises the right-leaning Hispanic Leadership Network.

"If we don't do better among Latinos, we're not going to be talking about how to get back Florida in the presidential race; we're going to be talking about how not to lose Texas going forward," Whit Ayres, a veteran Republican strategist whose firm worked for Jon Huntsman, told reporters Thursday [March 8]...
...But the voters polled cited jobs and the economy as the most important issue facing them, and that, said Ayres, is where Republicans need to make inroads. If the GOP presidential nominee builds a compelling case that he understands how to ignite the economy and create jobs better than Obama, "he will get a higher share of the Latino vote than he is getting right now," said Ayres, who is confident that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will win the nod. "With the right message and the right outreach, we will do better, and probably because we're not stupid. We can count. It's pretty obvious that we can't continue to lose Latinos 2-1, the way we did in 2008, and still be competitive as a national party."
To do this, the nominee "cannot come across as someone who does not care about the concerns of Latinos," Ayres said during a newsmaker breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. The candidate has to send "a signal that we'd love to have you as part of our team."

Title: "Victory on Arizona Immigration Law Could Cost Republicans in the Long Run/A green light from the Supreme Court could produce laws that worsen the GOP's problems with Hispanic voters"
Author: Beth Reinhardlink

"For the long-term political health of the Republican Party, it's absolutely critical that we do substantially better among Hispanic voters," said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, who has done surveys on immigration issues. "Numbers don't lie, and the numbers are clear: The percent of the electorate that is white is declining -- and declining rapidly. If we had the demographics in this country in 2008 that we had that we had in 1980, John McCain would be president of the United States."

Some of [Romney's] problem comes with the Republican brand, some through his own tough talk on illegal immigration during the Republican primaries. Either way, Romney has to find a way to close the gap or lose. Among the options: a conservative version of immigration reform, an Hispanic running mate, and plenty of grassroots courting.
"It's the most important swing voter group in the country," said Republican pollster Whit Ayres.

Last week [March 26-30], Republican pollster Whit Ayres spoke to Senate Republicans about the GOP's image problems with Hispanics. "Clearly, the tone has to be one of welcoming new people into the party," he said in an interview. "But the substance has got to be right as well. We need to be sure any positions we take are not perceived in the community as anti-Hispanic."

Whit Ayres, a Republican political strategist, said the evidence of a large decline in illegal border traffic was helpful. "Before you can move forward with any serious immigration reform you need to give Americans confidence that the border is secure," he said.

(Note: see secure the border)Title: "Rubio: Arizona Immigration Law Is Not a Model for the Nation/The Florida senator is in conflict with Romney on the controversial law"
Author: Beth Reinhardlink

"Some people are counting on using this issue as a wedge in the election," said Rubio, who added that he hoped to unveil his legislation this summer. "This has to be a longer-term commitment. How can we win the next election – that's not the design of this bill."
There are already signs of interest from both sides of the debate, reflecting Rubio's stature as one of the nation's most influential Hispanic elected officials. Shortly before he spoke, the Republican-leaning Hispanic Leadership Network released a survey that found voters across the board strongly prefer granting legal status with a work visa to the children of illegal immigrants instead of cititzenship. The poll was conducted by Whit Ayres of North Star Opinion, who worked on Rubio's successful 2010 Senate campaign.

"I'm not sure people have a sense that immigration is down," said Joshua Uliberri of the Democratic polling firm Lake Research Partners. In states with large Hispanic populations, "it hasn't penetrated their view of the issue."
Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster at Resurgent Republic, agreed. "A change in the data is not likely to change opinions," he said. People worried about illegal immigration "would be more likely to trust governors" in border states over polling or the administration.

Yet still one more worthless GOP debate starts today, January 16 at 9pm Eastern.
NETWORK: Fox News
PARTNERS: Fox and the Wall Street Journal (see the link).
MODERATOR: Bret Baier.
PANELISTS: Juan Williams of Fox and from the WSJ Gerald Seib (see the link) and Kelly Evans.
WHERE: Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
PARTICIPANTS: And then there were five: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman dropped out earlier today.
TRANSCRIPT: When available.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: For a preview of this debate, see debates. As with all the rest, this debate will feature weak, superficial questions and few follow-ups. Any immigration ideas the candidates present will be flawed, and the moderators won't press them on their actual policies but instead will concentrate on gotcha. The WSJ is a strong supporter of not just massive immigration but thinks we should have open borders.
SUGGESTED READING: The links in the list of candidates above and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
FAKERY: Per the NYT: "Twitter users who are watching the debate will be encouraged to react using the hashtags #answer and #dodge — giving their assessment of whether the candidates are dodging or actually answering questions — and the results will be displayed in metered form on FoxNews.com."
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.UPDATE: A transcript is here. The immigration question Williams and Evans asked were incredibly dumb and show yet again how much of a disservice these types of debates do to the U.S. We desperately need real debates using the format linked in SUGGESTED READING.UPDATE 2: See the post about Kelly Evans asking Rick Perry a weak immigration question that backfired.UPDATE 3: See the post about one of Juan Williams' weak questions.

The second worthless GOP debate of 2012 starts today, January 8 at 9am Eastern. This is apparently the first morning debate of this presidential campaign season, but don't expect it to be any different from all the others. You can watch the debate live on Facebook, but it will also be shown on NBC later in the day depending on your location (reportedly the same time slot as Meet the Press).
NETWORK: NBC News
PARTNERS: NBC, Facebook, and the New Hampshire Union Leader.
MODERATOR: David Gregory.
WHERE: The Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, New Hampshire
PARTICIPANTS: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman.
TRANSCRIPT: When available.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: For a preview of this debate, see debates and Facebook. As with all the rest, this debate will feature weak, superficial questions and few follow-ups. Any immigration ideas the candidates present will be flawed, and the moderators won't press them on their actual policies but instead will concentrate on gotcha. Facebook, like other high-tech companies, supports raising the number of high skilled immigrants. Thus, they aren't likely to take part in something that would really press the candidates on such issues.
SUGGESTED READING: The links in the list of candidates above and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.UPDATE: The only mention of immigration was this from Romney: "We also got our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws, put in place English immersion in our schools." That was it: there weren't even half-hearted pledges to secure the border from him or any of the others.
Only one of the actual "questions" came from a Facebook user; search for "Montalvo" for it. That question is a bit too philosophical, it isn't based on things Perry has said before, and it doesn't demand a response. Perry responds by not answering the question, and Gregory ends it with "I'm going to leave it there". Other questions that referenced Facebook were just general questions based on discussions Gregory claimed were taking place on Facebook during the debate. No doubt hundreds or thousands of questions were submitted through Facebook, and NBC only chose one.
Another gem from Gregory was this question: "Who knows more about the American economy, Grover Norquist or Warren Buffet?" Neither Romney nor Huntsman answered it. Pointless questions that those Gregory asked show why experts need to ask the candidates and their experts questions as discussed at the plan linked above. Having David Gregory ask questions is just one small step up from having Ron Burgundy do it.
The transcript follows:

GREGORY: This Sunday, a special edition of "Meet the Press," live from New Hampshire, the last debate before the first-in-the- nation Republican presidential primary. Voting here is just 48 hours away. We come to the Granite State, where nearly 1 in 5 voters remains undecided, despite seeing these candidates face-to-face in town halls, coffee shops, and even in their living rooms, a small state that will have a big impact on the race. Their motto: Live free or die.
The issues: jobs and the economy, America's role in the world, and which of these candidates is best suited to take on President Obama. This morning, a debate, in partnership with Facebook, the world's number-one social platform, and the New Hampshire Union Leader.
The candidates, the issues, and your questions.
ANNOUNCER: This is the NBC News-Facebook Republican candidates debate. From the Capitol Center for the Arts in Concord, New Hampshire, here now, the moderator of "Meet the Press," David Gregory.
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: And good morning and welcome to this special edition of "Meet the Press," the final debate before New Hampshire voting begins. All six candidates are here. And before we begin, you know the drill. We quickly go through the rules.
Each candidate will have one minute, 60 seconds, to make their statement, to respond to questions, and at my discretion, 30 seconds for follow-ups or rebuttals. We're on a pretty tight schedule, so I will ask the candidates to stay within their allotted time, and we'll see how that goes.
We've partnered with Facebook, so some of the questions will come from me and some, of course, will come from you. We encourage you to weigh in on the debate in real time, our online app at mtp.msnbc.com. You can monitor the conversation there, and we'll see some of your feedback during that debate -- over the course of this debate.
Candidates, good morning. I just want to say, on behalf of all Americans, that I thank you for being willing to debate each other every 10 hours, whether you feel you need it or not.
(LAUGHTER)
This is an important moment. Elections are about choices. They're about distinguishing one from the other. There's a political element to that, and of course, it has to do with policy, as well.
Governor Romney has won the Iowa caucuses, although narrowly. He's up in the polls here in New Hampshire. He's also up in the polls down in South Carolina. Speaker Gingrich, why shouldn't Governor Romney be the nominee of this party? What about his record concerns you most or makes him disqualified to be the nominee?
GINGRICH: Well, look, I think what Republicans have to ask is, who's most likely in the long run to survive against the kind of billion-dollar campaign the Obama team is going to run? And I think that a bold Reagan conservative, with a very strong economic plan, is a lot more likely to succeed in that campaign than a relatively timid, Massachusetts moderate who even the Wall Street Journal said had an economic plan so timid it resembled Obama.
So I think you've got to look at -- you know, Massachusetts was fourth from the bottom in job creation under Governor Romney. We created 11 million jobs while I was speaker, and I worked with Governor -- with President Reagan in the entire recovery of the 1980s. So I just there's a huge difference between a Reagan conservative and somebody who comes out of the Massachusetts culture with an essentially moderate record who I think will have a very hard time in a debate with President Obama. It's that simple.
GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, bottom line, you believe that Governor Romney is unelectable?
GINGRICH: No, I don't believe he's unelectable, but I think he has a -- look, against Obama's record, I think, you know, the fact is, President Obama is going to have a very hard re-election effort. But I do think the bigger the contrast, the bolder ideas, the clearer the choice, the harder it is for that billion-dollar campaign to smear his way back into office.
GREGORY: Speaker, this is your flyer that you're circulating here in New Hampshire. It says very clearly, "Romney is not electable"?
GINGRICH: I think he will have a very hard time getting re- elected -- getting elected.
GREGORY: Governor?
ROMNEY: David, I'm very proud of the record that I have, and I think the one thing you can't fool the people about New Hampshire about is the record of a governor next door. And people have watched me over my term as governor and saw that I was a solid conservative and that I brought important change to Massachusetts.
They recognized that I cut taxes 19 times, balanced the budget every one of the four years I was governor, put in place a $2 billion rainy day fund by the time I'd gone. We had -- we'd seen job losses in the months leading up to my becoming the governor, and then we began to finally create jobs.
By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than Barack Obama's created in the entire country.
ROMNEY: We also got our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws, put in place English immersion in our schools. I'm very proud of the conservative record I have, and I think that's why some of the leading conservatives in today's world, who are fighting the conservative battles of today, that don't have any axe to grind, have gotten behind my campaign.
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, right here, the great senator of New Hampshire, Kelly Ayotte. These are conservatives who looked at my record, looked at my plan to get this economy going.
I happen to believe that if we want to replace a lifetime politician like Barack Obama, who had no experience leading anything, you have to choose someone who's not been a lifelong politician, who has not spent his entire career in Washington, and instead has proven time and again he can lead, in the private sector twice, in the Olympics, and as a governor. We've got to nominate a leader if we're going to replace someone who is not a leader.
GREGORY: Well, Senator Santorum, had you not lost re-election in 2006, you would have been in Washington even longer than you were. It would have been 21 years. So you've got a long Washington record. How do you address this question? Why shouldn't Governor Romney be the nominee? What is disqualifying, in your judgment?
SANTORUM: Well, if his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts, why didn't he run for re-election? I mean, if you didn't want to even stand before the people of Massachusetts and run on your record, if it was that great, why didn't -- why did you bail out?
I mean, the bottom -- the bottom line is, you know, I go and fight the fight. If it was that important to the people of Massachusetts that you were going to go and fight for them, at least you can stand up and -- and make the battle that you did a good job.
I did that. I ran for re-election a couple of times, and I won a couple of times, and -- and in a 71 percent Democratic district, when I ran for re-election, I was redistricted. And I was in a 71 percent Democratic district, had a 90 percent conservative voting record. It was a hard thing to do. My district was more Democrat than the state of Massachusetts that I ran in. It was the steel valley of Pittsburgh.
And I stood up and fought for the conservative principles. I didn't do what Governor Romney did in 1994. I was running the same year he ran, in 1994. I ran in a tough state of Pennsylvania against an incumbent. Governor Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why? Because at the end of that campaign, he wouldn't stand for conservative principles. He ran from Ronald Reagan. And he said he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, on abortion, a whole host of other issues.
We want someone, when the time gets tough -- and it will in this election -- we want someone who's going to stand up and fight for the conservative principles, not bail out and not run, and not run to the left of Ted Kennedy.
GREGORY: Well, you did say when you endorsed him four years ago, just those words, that he would stand up for conservative principles, Senator.
SANTORUM: Vis-a-vis John McCain.
GREGORY: Vis-a-vis John McCain. Governor, your response?
ROMNEY: Well, a lot of things were inaccurate in that, and I'm not going to go through them one by one. But I can tell you this: I think it's unusual and perhaps understandable that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics, that that's all you want to do, that if you've been elected to something, well, you get -- want to get re-elected and re-elected.
I went to Massachusetts to make a difference. I didn't go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. I -- I made a difference. I put in place the things I wanted to do. I listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. There were 100 things we wanted to do. Those things I pursued aggressively. Some we won; some we didn't.
Run again? That would be about me. I was trying to help get the state into the best shape as I possibly could, left the world of politics, went back into business. Now I have the opportunity, I believe, to use the experience I have -- you've got a surprised look on your face.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: It's still -- it's still my time.
SANTORUM: Are you going -- are you going to tell people you're not going to run for re-election for president if you win?
ROMNEY: Rick, Rick, it's still my time.
SANTORUM: I'm just asking.
ROMNEY: OK.
GREGORY: Go ahead. Governor Romney -- Governor Romney, take 30 seconds there. ROMNEY: Yeah. What I'm going to tell you is, this -- this for me, politics is not a career. For me, my career was being in business and starting a business and making it successful. My -- my life's passion has been my family, my faith, and my country.
I believe, by virtue of the experiences I've had, that I'm in a good position to make a contribution to Washington. I long for a day when instead of having people who go to Washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected, and then when they lose office, they stay there and make money as lobbyists or connecting to businesses, I think it stinks.
I think when people go to Washington and serve Washington and -- and serve as -- as their -- the people of their -- of their nation and go home. I'd love to see term limits in Washington.
SANTORUM: So one -- so one term?
ROMNEY: And so -- no, as the president of the United States, as the president of the United States, if I'm elected, of course I'll fight for a second term. There's a lot of work to be done.
GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, take 30 seconds here to get in.
GINGRICH: Well, yeah. Mitt, I realize the red light doesn't mean anything to you, because you're the frontrunner.
(APPLAUSE)
But -- but can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney? The fact is, you ran in ‘94 and lost. That's why you weren't serving in the Senate with Rick Santorum. The fact is, you had a very bad re- election rating, you dropped out of office, you had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You didn't have this interlude of citizenship while you thought about what you do. You were running for president while you were governor. You were going all over the country. You were -- you were out of state consistently.
You then promptly re-entered politics. You happened to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy.
Now you're back running. You have been running consistently for years and years and years. So this idea that suddenly citizenship showed up in your mind, just level with the American people. You've been running for -- at least since the 1990's.
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: Governor, please.
ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, citizenship has always been on my mind and -- and I happened to see my dad run for governor when he was 54-years- old. He had good advice to me. He said, Mitt, never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay a mortgage. If you find yourself in a position where you can serve, well you ought to have a responsibility to do so, if you think you can make a difference.
He said also don't get involved in politics if your kids are still young because it may turn their heads. I never thought I'd get involved with politics. When I saw Ted Kennedy running virtually unopposed in 1994, a man who I thought by virtue of the policies of the liberal welfare state, had created a permanent underclass in America, I said someone's got to run against him. And I happened to have been wise enough to realize, I didn't have a ghost of a chance at -- at beating him.
This -- this guy from -- Republican from Massachusetts was not going to beat Ted Kennedy. And I told my partners at my firm, I'll be back in six months, don't take my chair. And I -- I went in and gave it a real battle and went after it. It was -- I was happy that he had to take a mortgage out on his house to ultimately defeat me. And I'm -- I'm very proud of the fact that I have stood up as a citizen to battle when I felt it was best for the nation. And -- and we're talking about running for president.
I am in this race because I care about the country. I believe my background and experience are ...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Let me bring Dr. Paul into this, because there is a question about who is the true conservative in the race. And Governor Romney said only nine years ago during an interview with New England Cable News, he said the following, "I think people recognize that I'm not a partisan republican, that I'm someone who is moderate and my views are progressive." Do you believe Governor Romney now when he says he is a man of constancy and that he'll stand up for conservative principles?
PAUL: You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. And I think the question in the way that you ask it is superficial and you're talking about character, which is very important. But I feel we should deal with the issues as well. And I don't see how we can do well against Obama if we have any candidate that, you know, endorsed, you know, single payer systems and TARP bailouts and don't challenge the Federal Reserve's $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends.
I don't see how we can have anybody really compete with Obama who doesn't challenge this huge empire we have overseas and the overseas spending. I mean this is how nations come down. You see they extend themselves too far overseas. That's how the Soviets came down. We -- we really have to talk about real cuts. We haven't gotten around to this yet.
So if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. Character is important and motivation is important, our history is important. But I really consider that, in the debate format, to be less significant than what we really believe in.
GREGORY: You read my mind, Dr. Paul. And we're going to get to...
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: ...some of the touch choices, not just on politics, but on policy. First Governor Perry, I do want to ask you to flat out -- your staking your campaign going down to South Carolina, is Governor Romney unelectable in your judgment?
PERRY: Well I think you have to ask the question of, who is it that can beat Obama. Who is it that can invigorate the -- the Tea Party? Who is it that can take the message of -- of smaller, outsider government that's truly going to change that places (sic). I look from here down to Rick Santorum I see insiders. Individuals who have been the big spending Republicans in -- in Washington, D.C.
And lets be honest with ourselves, I mean the fact of the matter is that Obama has thrown gasoline on the fire. But the bonfire was burning well before Obama got there. It was policies and spending, both from Wall Street and from the insiders in Washington, D.C., that got us in this problem. And we need a candidate that can not only draw that stark contrast between themselves and Barack Obama, but also stand up and lead the Tea Party movement back.
2010 was about the Tea Party standing up and understanding that Republicans, big spending Republicans that caused the -- as much of this problem as anything, and it was their power that brought together -- that brought Washington, D.C., and the House to Republican control. And that's the kind of individual we've got to have to -- to lead this election.
GREGORY: Before I get to Governor Huntsman, I'd be remiss, Governor Romney if I did not allow you to respond to the quote that I read from you nine years ago. What would you say to conservatives so that they'll trust that you will stand up for conservative principles?
ROMNEY: They've got my record as governor. That -- that's the great thing of people here in New Hampshire is they see what I did as governor of Massachusetts. I also had the occasion after my last failed attempt to run for president, a learning experience, to sit down and write a book. And I wrote a book and described my view for the country. And people can describe it in differing ways but I -- but my view is that -- that the principles that I've learned in business and the principles as governor, frankly, it made me more conservative as time has gone on.
I've seen a lot of government trying to solve problems, and it didn't work. And -- and my view is, the right course for America is to have somebody who understands how the economy works, who will passionately get America back on track.
GREGORY: All right. We're going to come back to the question of obstacles to the nomination, but let me get to policy, Governor Huntsman. This is, by all accounts, an age of austerity for this country, a jobs crisis, also a spending crisis in Washington. I wonder what specifically you would do to say to Americans, "These are cuts I'm going to make in federal spending that will cause pain, that will require sacrifice"?
HUNTSMAN: Let me say -- let me say, first are all, with respect to Governor Romney, you know, there are a lot of people who are tuning in this morning, and I'm sure they're terribly confused after watching all of this political spin up here.
I was criticized last night by Governor Romney for putting my country first. And I just want to remind the people here in New Hampshire and throughout the United States that I think...
(APPLAUSE)
He criticized me while he was out raising money for serving my country in China, yes, under a Democrat, like my two sons are doing in the United States Navy. They're not asking who -- what political affiliation the president is.
I want to be very clear with the people here in New Hampshire and this country: I will always put my country first. And I think that's important to them.
GREGORY: All right. Well, why don't you get a response, Governor Romney? And then I'll come back to you on the austerity question. ROMNEY: I think we serve our country first by standing for people who believe in conservative principles and doing everything in our power to promote an agenda that does not include President Obama's agenda. I think the decision to go and work for President Obama is one which you took. I don't disrespect your decision to do that. I just think it's most likely that the person who should represent our party running against President Obama is not someone who called him a remarkable leader and went to be his ambassador in China.
HUNTSMAN: This nation is divided, David, because of attitudes like that.
(APPLAUSE)
The American people are tired of the partisan division. They have had enough. There is no trust left among the American people and the institutions of power and among the American people and our elected officials. And I say, we've had enough, and we have to change our direction in terms of coming together as Americans first and foremost and finding solutions to our problems.
GREGORY: Dr. Paul said let's not be superficial. Let's talk substance. So, Governor Huntsman, name three areas where Americans will feel real pain in order to balance the budget.
HUNTSMAN: Well, I would have to say that I agree with the Ryan plan. I think I'm the only one standing up here who has embraced the Ryan plan. It's a very aggressive approach to taking about $6.2 trillion out of the budget over 10 years. And it looks at everything.
And what I like about it is it says there will be no sacred cows. Medicare won't be a sacred cow. Department of Defense won't be a sacred cow. As president of the United States, I'm going to stand up and I'm going to say, we are where we are, 24 percent spending as a percentage of GDP. We've got to move to 19 percent...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Three programs that will make Americans feel pain, sir.
HUNTSMAN: Well, let me just say on -- on entitlements, across the board, I will tell the upper-income category in this country that there will be means testing. There are a lot of people in this nation who don't need...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Social Security and Medicare?
HUNTSMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. And also, I'm not going to tie Department of Defense spending to some percentage of GDP. I'm going to tie it to a strategy that protects the American people. And if we think that we can't find efficiencies and cuts in the Department of Defense budget, then we are crazy.
GREGORY: Senator Santorum, same question. Three programs that would make -- would have to be cut to make Americans feel pain, to sacrifice if we're going to balance the budget?
SANTORUM: I would agree with Governor Huntsman that means testing -- I talked about that in Hollis yesterday. We had about 1,200 people, and I walked through and talked about how we have to make sure that we're not going to burden future generations with a Social Security program that's underfunded. It's already unfunded right now.
And we have to take those who have -- who have been successful, who are seniors, who have a tremendous amount of wealth, and we've got to reduce benefits. It makes no sense for folks who are struggling right now to pay their payroll tax, which is the biggest tax. It's tax on labor, makes us uncompetitive. And the idea that someone on the left would have to raise those taxes, to make labor even more uncompetitive for those working people who are trying to get a job to subsidize high-income seniors doesn't make any sense to me.
Food stamps is another place. We've got to block grant it, send it back to the states, just like I did on welfare reform, do the same thing with Medicaid. Those three programs. We've got to -- and including housing programs, block grant them, send them back to the states, require work, and put a time limit. You do those three things, we will help take these programs, which are now dependency programs, which people are continually dependent upon, and you take them into transitional programs to help people move out of poverty.
GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, on the issue of Medicare, when you were on "Meet the Press" earlier in the year, you had talked about what Paul Ryan was talking about as a step too far, which is moving seniors onto a premium support or a voucher program, depending on how you phrase it.
As you know, Senator Santorum thinks that current seniors should be moved off of that program into premium support or a voucher program.
Do you agree with doing it that quickly and making current seniors bear the brunt of that?
GINGRICH: Well, the fact is that the Ryan-Wyden bill, which was just introduced recently, actually incorporates allowing people to choose and allows them to stay in traditional Medicare with the premium support model or go to new methods. And I think it's a substantial improvement, because it allows for a transition in Medicare in a way that makes sense.
But, David, you know, I -- I find it fascinating that very, very highly paid Washington commentators and Washington analysts love the idea of pain.
What -- who's going to be in pain?
The duty of the president is to find a way to manage the federal government so the primary pain is on changing the bureaucracy. On -- on theft alone, we could save $100 billion a year in Medicaid and Medicare if the federal government were competent. That's a trillion dollars over 10 years. And the only people in pain would be crooks.
So I think a sound approach is...
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: -- to actually improve the government, not punish the American people because of the failure of the political class to have any sense of cleverness.
GREGORY: Governor Perry, from Facebook, a lot of question, as we mentioned, have been submitted. And this from Martin Montalvo, because we do have a spending crisis, but also, a lot of people hurting. He writes this: "With more Americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-American for Americans to feel relieved when the government helps them?"
PERRY: Well, let me answer the question that you asked earlier, what are the three areas that you would make some reductions that people would feel some pain. And I will tell you, it would be those bureaucrats at the Department of Commerce and -- and Energy and Education that we're going to do away with.
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: And that's your final answer?
(LAUGHTER)
PERRY: You know, the fact of the matter is that Americans want to have a job. That's -- that's the issue here. And the idea that -- that there are people clamoring for government to come and to give them assistance is just wrong-headed. And -- and that's what he needs to be focusing on as a people, is how do we create the environment in this country where the entrepreneurs know that they can risk their capital, have a chance to have a return on the investment and create the -- the jobs out there so people can have the dignity to take care of their families.
That's what Americans are looking for.
I've done that for the last 11 years in the state of Texas and have the executive governing experience that no one else up here on this stage has.
GREGORY: All right, I'm going to leave it there.
We're going to take a quick break.
We are going to come back live from New Hampshire with many more questions for the candidates and feedback from you. So please participate online at mtp.msnbc.com.
We're coming right back to New Hampshire.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: And we are -- we are back on this special edition of MEET THE PRESS from here in New Hampshire.
We want to get right back to the questions here with our candidates.
And before the break, we were talking about Medicare. Paul Ryan, Senator Santorum, had a plan where he'd like to move seniors off, give them a voucher or premium support and then they would take care of their health care from there.
There's a lot of debate about that. And I mentioned, you said seniors should be affected right now, 55 plus, have them affected right now, which has been somewhat controversial.
You wanted to respond to that? SANTORUM: Well, you know, I hear this all the time when I was -- I've been campaigning around the state, you know, we should have the same kind of health care that members of Congress have.
Well, that's pretty much what Paul Ryan's plan is. It's a -- the members of Congress have a premium support model. So does every other federal employee.
I mean it works very well as, you know, the federal government has a liability. They put -- put money out there and then if you want, you -- you have about this thick, if you're an employee in Washington, DC, have got a whole bunch of different plans to choose from. And you have all sorts of options available to you. If you want a more expensive plan, you pay more of a coinsurance. If you want a less expensive plan, you don't.
But here's the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and -- and everybody up here. It's whether you believe people can be free to make choices or whether you have to make decisions for them.
And I believe seniors, just like every other Americans, should be free to make the choices in their health care plan that's best for them.
GREGORY: Governor Romney, there's a lot of discussion...
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: -- a lot of discussion this morning on Facebook about taxes. And as we talk about taxes and spending, of course, what about economic security and economic growth.
There's been a debate in Washington and beyond, as you well know, between Warren Buffet and Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist, the anti- tax crusader, who says no tax increases under any circumstances. Warren Buffet says, hey, the wealthier in this country can pay more and they should pay more. Indeed, balancing the budget is a way for more economic growth down the line.
Who knows more about the American economy, Grover Norquist or Warren Buffet?
ROMNEY: Well, who knows more about tax policy?
I'm not sure that we're going to choose from the two of them. But I can tell you this, the right course for America is not to raise taxes on Americans. I understand that President Obama and people of his political persuasion would like to take more money from the American people. And they want to do that so that they can continue to grow government.
But the answer for America is not to grow government, it is to shrink government. We've been going -- over the last 20, 30, 40 years, government keeps growing at a faster rate relative to inflation. We've got to stop the extraordinary spending in this country. That's why I put out a -- a plan that reduces government spending...
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: -- I cut -- I cut programs, a whole series of programs, by -- by the way, the number one to cut is ObamaCare. That saves $95 billion a year.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Return this -- as Rick indicated -- return to states a whole series of programs -- food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid. And then set how much goes to them.
And, finally, with regards to entitlements, in the entitlement reform area, I do not want to change Medicare and Social Security for current retirees. But for younger people coming up, they have to recognize that, in the future, higher income people will receive less payments of the premium support program.
GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, who knows more about the American economy?
You -- you -- and this is an odd question (ph), you seem to be a little bit uncomfortable with a moment from earlier in this debate cycle when everybody said that they would reject even a 10 to one ratio of cuts to new taxes.
HUNTSMAN: It was -- it was a silly format. I mean it was an important question they asked us to raise our hands. I mean for heaven's sake, we didn't get a chance to talk about it. I put a tax reform proposal on the table endorsed by the Wall Street Journal that goes farther than anybody elses on this stage. It calls for what absolutely needs to be done. And everybody knows about it.
We are so chock full of loopholes and deductions, it weighs down our tax code to the tune of $1 trillion, $100 billion. You can't compete that way. It gives rise to lobbying on Capitol Hill that needs to clean up. We've got to phase out loopholes and deductions in total. And we've got to say, so long to corporate welfare and to subsidies. Because this country can no longer afford it. And we've got to prepare for competition in the twenty first century.
GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, if you become President Gingrich and the leader of the Democrats, Harry Reed says he's going to promise to make you a one term president, how would you propose to work with someone like that in order to achieve results in Washington?
GINGRICH: I think every president who works with the leader of every opposition knows they're working with someone who wants to make them a one term president. I mean you know that -- that's the American process. I worked with Ronald Reagan in the early 1990's. Tip O'Neil was speaker. He wanted to make Reagan a one term president. We had to get one-third of the Democrats to vote for the Reagan tax cuts and we did.
As speaker I was negotiating with Bill Clinton. He knew I wanted him to be a one term president. And we got a lot of things done, including welfare reform. Because you have to reach -- I agree with what Governor Huntsman said earlier, you have to at some point say, the country comes first. How are we going to get things done? We'll fight later. Lets sit down in a room, lets talk it through. I'll tell you what I need and I'll tell you what I can't do.
You tell me what you need and you tell me what you can't do and it sometimes takes 20 or 30 days. But if people of goodwill, even if their partisans, come together, talk it out, you know, we've got welfare reform, the first tax cut in 16 years, 4.2 percent unemployment and four straight years of a balanced budget, with a Republican speaker and a Democratic president. So it can be done with real leadership.
GREGORY: Anybody else have a point of view about how you would actually work with the other side when they've committed to working against you? Governor?
ROMNEY: Yeah I was governor of a state that had a slightly democratic leaning House and Senate.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: My legislature was 85 percent Democrat. And I went around at the very beginning of having been elected and met with the Speaker of the House and the Senate president. The Senate president said something I won't forget, he said, Mitt the campaign is over. The people expect us to now govern for them. And we did. We met every week. We rotated in offices. We got to know each other personally. We developed a relationship of respect and rapport, even though we disagreed on a lot of issues.
And when crises arose, as they did time and again -- we had a severe budget crisis. I went to them and said, will you give me unilateral power to cut spending? Without even a vote of the legislature, they had enough confidence in me and decided to do that. And -- and I was able to cut the spending on an emergency basis, not just slow down its rate of growth. We can work together, Republicans and Democrats are able to go across the aisle because we have common -- we really do have areas of -- of common interest.
Even though there are dramatically different perspectives on how the world works and what's right, we can find common ground. And I have proven in a state that is very Democrat that I'm able to work with people. Nineteen tax cuts, protected charter schools, drove our schools to be number one in the nation -- kept them there rather. I -- I -- that -- that record can work with Republicans and Democrats who are willing to work together.
GREGORY: Dr. Paul, there's this question of argument versus accomplishment. The question again comes from Facebook. Health Treat (ph) writes, I want to -- Paul Treat (ph) rather -- I want to know what Ron Paul's plan of action will be to achieve getting the House and Senate to help him do all he has promised. And here's the record Dr. Paul. You have actually sponsored 620 measures. Only four made it to a vote on the House floor. And only one has been signed into law.
PAUL: You know that demonstrates how out of touch the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress is with the American people. Because I'm supporting things that help the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: That's the disgust that people have. Is because they keep growing government. Whether it's the Republicans in charge or the Democrats in -- in charge. But as far as working with other groups, I think my record is about as good as anybody's because I work on the principle that freedom and the Constitution bring people together, for different reasons. People use freedom in different ways like it does. It invites variations in our religious beliefs and economic beliefs.
PAUL: We tell people that they're allowed to, you know, spend their money as they choose. On civil liberties, that's a different segment. Republican conservatives aren't all that well known for protecting privacy and personal liberties. When it comes to this spending overseas, I can work a coalition. Matter of fact, my trillion dollar proposal to cut spending, doesn't immediately deal with Social Security, it's to try to work our way out of Social Security.
I'm cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to ‘06 budget. And I do not believe that you have to have -- people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the American people, they get their freedom back and get no income back, they don't suffer any pain.
GREGORY: Senator Santorum, here's the reality. Two previous presidents, President Bush talked about being a united and not a divider, President Obama talked about transforming Washington, and it hasn't worked. Washington is polarized, the country is polarized, and the American people are pretty sick of the fact that nothing gets done in Washington. Specifically, how do you change that?
SANTORUM: Well, let me first address Congressman Paul, because the -- the serious issue with Congressman Paul here is you're right. He's never really passed anything of any -- any import.
And one of the -- one of the reasons people like Congressman Paul is his economic plan. He's never been able to accomplish any of that. He has no track record of being able to work together. He's been out there on the -- on the margins and has really been unsuccessful in -- in working together with anybody to do anything.
The problem is that what Congressman Paul can do as commander-in- chief is he can on day one do what he says he wants to do, which is pull all our troops back out of seas, overseas, put them here in America, leave us in a -- in a -- in a situation where the world is now going to be created -- huge amounts of vacuums all over the place, and have folks like China and Iran and others. Look at the Straits of Hormuz, as I said last night. We wouldn't even have the Fifth Fleet there.
The problem with Congressman Paul is, all the things that Republicans like about him he can't accomplish and all the things they're worried about, he'll do day one. And -- and that's the problem.
(APPLAUSE)
And so what we -- what we need to do is have someone who has a plan and has experience to do all the things Republicans and conservatives would like to do.
GREGORY: Let me get Dr. Paul to respond...
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: And then I'd like my opportunity to come back and answer the question.
GREGORY: Well...
PAUL: It's not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic and still running a foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, trying to make the world safe for democracy. And, look, we have elections overseas and we don't even accept the elections.
No, changing foreign policy is significant, but that's where a nation will come down if they keep doing this. We can't stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation-building. We cannot have 900 bases overseas. We have to change policy.
What about changing monetary policy? Yes, we do. But we've had that for 100 years. And right now, we're winning that battle. The American people now agree. About 75 percent of the American people now say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve, find out what they're doing, and who are their friends that they're bailing out constantly?
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: Senator Santorum, come back to this point. It's easy to say, boy, I'm going to change the culture in Washington, hasn't worked for the past two presidents.
SANTORUM: Well, it -- it worked in my case. Look at welfare reform. In a federal entitlement that -- I remember standing next to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ted Kennedy, who were out there just talking about how this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it, there'd be bread lines, the horrific consequences of removing federal income support from basically mothers with children.
And we stood up and said, no, that creating dependency and creating that dependency upon -- upon federal dollars is more harmful than -- and in not believing in people and their ability to work is more harmful. And so we stood up and fought and went out to the American public -- Bill Clinton vetoed this bill twice. We had hard opposition. But I was able to -- to work together and paint a vision.
We made compromises, but not on our core principles. The core principles were this was going to end the federal program, we were going to require work, and we were going to put time limits on welfare. I stuck to those principles, and we were able to compromise on some things like transportation funding, and some daycare funding, all in order to get a consensus that poverty is not a disability...
GREGORY: All right.
SANTORUM: ... and that programs that we need to put in place should help transition people, not make them dependent, and we were able to get 70 votes in the United States Senate, including 17 Democrats.
GREGORY: Governor Huntsman, this question of -- if the leader of the Democrats promised to make you a one-term president, how would you go about dealing with them in a more effective way than you think the man you serve, President Obama, did?
HUNTSMAN: I think it comes down to one word, David, and I think the one word is trust. When the American people look at the political process play out, they hear all the spinning and all the doctrinaire language, and they still walk away with the belief that they're not being represented in Congress, that there's no trust in the executive branch. And the Simpson-Bowles bipartisan proposal lands right on the desk of Barack Obama, and it lands in the garbage can.
The first press conference I had when I ran for governor in 2004 was on ethics in government service. I talked about term limits. I talked about campaign finance reform. I talked about the role of lobbyists and knew I wouldn't make a lot of friends. I had one member of the legislature who supported me in that run. We won, because we had the will of the people. And I believe the next president -- and if that is to be me, I want to roam around this country and I want to generate the level of excitement and enthusiasm that I know exists among the American people to bring term limits to Congress, to close the revolving door...
(APPLAUSE)
HUNTSMAN: -- on members going right on out and become a lobbyist. We've got to start with the structural problems. There is no trust...
GREGORY: All right.
Governor Perry, I want to continue on the theme of leadership.
PERRY: Good. We need to.
GREGORY: This is...
(LAUGHTER)
GREGORY: As you well know, New Hampshire is an independent place. And I wonder where, besides criticizing the previous administration for running up the debt, I wonder where you would buck your party.
What would you say or do to make Republicans uncomfortable?
PERRY: I hope I'm making Republicans uncomfortable right now by talking about the spending that they've done back in the 2000s, when we had control of both parties. I mean that...
GREGORY: But aside from that, I just...
PERRY: -- that is...
GREGORY: -- I just mentioned that.
PERRY: Well, listen, Dr. Paul says that the biggest problem facing this country is -- is our work overseas. I disagree with that. The biggest problem facing this country today is a Congress that is out of control with their spending. And we've got to have someone, an outsider, that will walk in, not part of the insider group that you see here, people who have voted for raising the -- the debt limit, people who have been part of the problem that is facing America.
I will tell you two things that can occur that a president can lead the charge on. And it will put term limits into place. One of those is a part-time Congress to tell those members of Congress, we're going to cut your pay, we're going to cut the amount of time that you spend in Washington, DC, send you back to your districts so you can have a job, like everybody else in your district has, and live under the laws of which you pass...
GREGORY: But Governor...
PERRY: -- and then a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution.
GREGORY: Governor, my question...
PERRY: You do those two things...
GREGORY: -- but my question, sir was...
PERRY: -- and that will make them uncomfortable.
GREGORY: You think telling conservatives a balanced budget amendment is something I'm going to do and I'm going to cut spending, that's going to make them uncomfortable?
PERRY: You're darned right, because there's a bunch of people standing up here that say they're conservatives, but the records don't follow up on that.
GREGORY: All right, I've got to take another break here.
We'll come back -- we'll come back on this point.
Another quick break here.
We'll return with much more. And, of course, please share your thoughts with us online via Facebook at mtp.msnbc.com.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: And we are back in New Hampshire.
I'm happy to be joined now by our local partners for the debate, for the -- from the "New Hampshire Union Leader," senior political reporter, John DiStasos is -- is with us.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, David.
GREGORY: Good go have you here, John.
And from WHT -- WHDC -- we had this problem yesterday -- TV in Boston, Channel 7 in Boston, political editor Andy Hiller.
Welcome to you, as well.
Good to have you both.
John, get it started.
JOHN DISTASOS, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, "NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER": All right, Governor Huntsman, it's winter in New Hampshire. It's a little mild, but it's still winter. Home heating oil is nearly $4 a gallon. Yet President Obama and Congress have cut by 25 percent the program that helps -- helps low income people heat their homes. About a million households that were helped last year won't be helped this year.
Is this an example of pain that must be suffered?
Should this -- should this program funding be restored?
Should it be cut more?
So does this program be eliminated, perhaps?
Where does this fit in?
This is a practical problem in this area of the country.
HUNTSMAN: No. We have people in need. We have people suffering. And this is a challenge that we need to address.
But I believe we're not going to be able to effectively confront it head-on until such time as this nation begins to move more toward greater energy diversity and energy independence.
One of the first things I would do as president is I would take a look at that one product distribution bias that always favors one product, and that's oil. And I'd say, if we're going to do what this nation needs to be done, in terms of using a multiplicity of products that we have in such diversity and abundance and get them to the customers, we're going to have to break up that one product distribution monopoly.
And I want to do to that oil distribution monopoly what we did to broadcast communication in the -- in the early 1970s. We blew it apart. And we went to the Federal Trade Commission and said we need more. We need diverse sources to draw from. We need -- we need to service the consumers.
I believe if we're going to do what needs to be done from an energy independence standpoint, all products -- getting the products to the customer, we've got to disrupt that one product monopoly that does not serve this country well nor its consumers.
GREGORY: Congressman Paul, Congressman Paul...
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: -- how do you feel about...
(APPLAUSE)
DISTASOS: How do you -- how do you feel about subsidies in -- in general for -- for specific energy and...
(CROSSTALK)
DISTASOS: -- and also, though, more -- more specifically right now, more immediately, this low income program, heating assistance program.
PAUL: Right.
DISTASOS: Is this something that fits in un -- under your view of -- of what government does do or should not do?
PAUL: Well, subsidies per se are -- it's bad economic policy. It's bad moral policy, because it's using government force to transfer money from one group to another. And economically, it does a lot of harm.
But when it -- when it comes to energy, we should, you know, deregulate it, like others talk about.
But we need to talk -- you know supply and demand -- everybody knows about supply and demand. They talk about oil and if we had more alternative sources, that we -- we always hope the prices will go down.
But everybody forgets that there's another 50 percent of a transaction is the monetary unit and you don't deal, very few people talk about the supply and demand of money.
And when you create a lot of money, prices go up. So it goes up in the areas where government most gets involved, you know, in education and medical care, housing and in energy.
So prices go up much faster than in any other place. So if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, you compound the problem.
It's good politics. Yes, I'm going to subsidize you and take care of you. But it's bad economic policy and it -- it's not a good way to find -- find any answers.
DISTASOS: Gov -- Governor Romney, this is such an important topic, because beyond the -- the regional implication, there's also a larger question about the social safety net. You think all the time about opportunity for Americans.
But what about Americans left behind?
In this age of austerity, what do Americans have to learn to live with less of?
ROMNEY: Well, what we don't need is to have a -- a federal government saying we're going to solve all of the problems of poverty across the entire country, because the -- what it means to be poor in Massachusetts is different than Montana and Mississippi and other places in the country.
And that's why these programs, all these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net need to be brought together and sent back to the states. And let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are de -- able to deal with their -- the needs of those folks.
So you -- you -- whether it's food stamps and housing vouchers, they're certainly on the list. But certainly Medicaid, home -- home heating oil support.
ROMNEY: What -- what unfortunately happens is with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs, very little of the money that's actually needed by those that really need help, those that can't care for themselves, actually reaches them.
These -- they -- government -- folks in Washington keep building program after program. It's time to say enough of that. Let's get the money back to the states, the way the constitution intended.
DISTASO: OK.
ROMNEY: And let states care for their own people in the way they feel best.
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: Andy Hiller.
HILLER: Governor Romney, I'd like to remind you of something you said in Bay Windows, which is a gay newspaper in Massachusetts in 1994, when you were running against Senator Kennedy. These are your words: "I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party, and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts." How have you stood up for gay rights? And when have you used your voice to influence Republicans on this issue?
ROMNEY: Andy, as you know, I don't discriminate, and in the appointments that I made when I was governor of Massachusetts, a member of my cabinet was gay. I appointed people to the bench regardless of their sexual orientation, made it very clear that, in my view, we should not discriminate in hiring policies and legal policies.
At the same time, from the very beginning in 1994, I said to the gay community: I do not favor same-sex marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage, and that has been my -- my view.
But -- but if people are looking for someone who -- who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people -- that have different sexual orientation don't have full rights in this country, they won't find that in me.
HILLER: When's the last time you stood up and spoke out for increasing gay rights?
ROMNEY: Right now.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
HILLER: Senator Santorum, would you be a voice for increasing gay rights in the party?
(LAUGHTER)
SANTORUM: Surprised he's coming to me. What? What was your question?
HILLER: Would you be a voice for speaking out for gay rights in your party? And if not, why not?
SANTORUM: I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has equality of opportunity. That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws, with respect to marriage or respect to adoption, and things like that.
So you can be respectful. This is the beautiful thing about this country. James Madison called the First Amendment -- he called it the perfect remedy. And that is, people of all different backgrounds -- diversity, opinions, faith -- can come into the public square and can be heard and can be heard in a way that's respectful of everybody else.
But just because you don't agree with someone's desire to change the law doesn't mean you don't like them or you hate them or you want to discriminate against them, but you're trying to promote -- excuse me, promote things that you think are best for society.
And I do so, and I think if you -- if you watch the town hall meetings that I've been doing all over New Hampshire, I do so in a respectful tone. I listen to the other side. I let them make their arguments. And then we do so in a very -- very respectful way. And you know what? We may not agree. That's why we leave it open to the public to be able to elect members of Congress and the Senate and the president who will support their ideas.
HILLER: What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?
SANTORUM: I would love him as much as I did the second before he said it. And I would try to do everything I can to be as good a father to him as possible.
(APPLAUSE)
DISTASO: Governor Perry, we're going to move on. Right-to-work, which outlaws mandatory union membership, as you know, continues to be a major issue in the state of New Hampshire. You've spoken about promoting, having states pass state laws. What about on the federal level? Do you see this as a federal issue and one that you would promote as president or is it a state-by-state...
PERRY: Actually, it is a federal issue, and it's a federal issue because of the law that was passed that forces the states to make a decision about whether or not they're going to be right-to-work. So Jim DeMint's legislation, I would support that, of repealing that legislation that forces states to make that decision to be a right-to- work, rather than all of this country being right-to-work.
Listen, I'm not anti-union. I'm pro-job. And the way you promote this country's rehabilitation from the Obama administration's attack on -- on job creation is by taxes and regulation, particularly the regulatory side, and -- and pulling those regulations that have gone forward over the course of the last -- since ‘08 and test them all for -- do they create jobs or do they kill jobs? And if they kill jobs, you throw them out.
That will make more difference in this country from the standpoint -- I'm a right-to-work guy. I come from a right-to-work state. And I will tell you, if New Hampshire wants to become the magnet for job creation in the Northeast, you pass that right-to-work legislation in this state.
(APPLAUSE)
DISTASO: I'd like to -- I'd like to ask both Governor Romney, quickly, and Senator Santorum, quickly, do -- what positive contributions do labor unions provide in this country at this -- this point in the 21st century?
ROMNEY: Well, the carpenters union, for instance, trains their workers to be more effective on the job. And when they compete against nonunion workers, while they do that on a fair basis, if that happens, that's a positive contribution.
But let me just say this with regards to unions. I agree with Governor Perry. Right-to-work legislation makes a lot of sense for New Hampshire and for the nation.
But -- but, also, let's not forget the government unions and the impact they're having. If we're going to finally pull back the extraordinary political power government unions are exerting in this country, we're going to have to say that people who work for the government, government workers, should have their compensation tied to that which exists in the private sector. People who are government servants, public servants, should not be paid more than the taxpayers who are paying for it.
GREGORY: Governor, can I just -- very quickly, Senator, because we're about to hit a hard break, a quick comment on this?
SANTORUM: Yeah, I will. I've signed a -- a pledge that I would support a national right to work. When I was in -- I mentioned this last night. When I was a senator for Pennsylvania, I didn't vote for it because Pennsylvania's not a right-to-work state and I didn't want to vote for a law that would change the law in Pennsylvania, number one.
Number two, what can unions do? As -- as Mitt mentioned, they can do training. They also do a lot in the community. I work with a lot of labor unions in Philadelphia and other places to do a lot of community involvement work. And they -- they try to participate as good members of the community, like a business does.
GREGORY: I've got to cut you off. I apologize. We have a mandatory break. We'll be back with more questions in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: The NBC News-Facebook Republican presidential candidates debate continues from New Hampshire. Now, the moderator of "Meet the Press," David Gregory.
(APPLAUSE)
GREGORY: And we are back for our final half-hour. So much discussion, Speaker Gingrich, on Facebook in the course of this debate about jobs. And you can understand why. And we've talked about spending; we've talked about economic growth.
It was Governor Romney who made the point to a young person who approached him that if he were president, and when this person got out of college, he or she'd have a job. If President Obama has a second term, he or she will not have a job. Isn't that the kind of thing that makes people angry, the politicians, easy answers like that?
GINGRICH: Well, I don't think that's an easy answer. I think that's a statement of fact.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
You know, but let me -- let me take -- I want to go back to what John DiStaso said, because it's exactly the same question. The long- term answer to $4 heating oil is to open up offshore development of oil and gas, open up federal lines to oil and gas, flood the market, as -- as Dr. Paul said, make supply and demand work for us, not against us. The price will come down.
Under Obama, 2011 was the highest price of gasoline in history. It is a direct result of his policies, which kill jobs, raise the price of heating oil and gasoline, weaken the United States, increase our dependence on foreign countries, and weaken our national security in the face of Iran trying to close the Straits of Hormuz.
So the right president opening up in a Reagan tradition and using the massive development of American energy, there's 3.2 percent unemployment in North Dakota. There's a hint here. You can actually have jobs, lower price heating oil, which by the way means less LIHEAP spending, so you get more revenue from the federal government from royalties, less spending on -- on LIHEAP subsidy, lower price, people are happier all the way around. That's what supply-side economics was originally all about in the 1970s.
GREGORY: But, Governor Romney, on this economic question, you blame President Obama for the jobs crisis, but when you look at the data and a positive trend line, he still only gets the blame and none of the credit. How come? ROMNEY: Actually, I don't blame him for the recession and for the decline. What I blame him for is having it go on so long and going so deep and having a recovery that's been so tepid.
Businesses I talked to all over the country that would normally be hiring people are not hiring. And I asked them why. And they say because they look at the policies of this administration and they feel they're under attack.
When you have an administration that tries to raise taxes -- and has on businesses -- when it puts in place Obamacare that's going to raise the cost of health care for businesses, when they stack the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges, which means that the policies relating to -- to labor are now going to change dramatically in a direction they find uncomfortable, when you have Obamacare that -- that places more mandates on them, when you -- when you have Dodd-Frank, which makes it harder for community banks to make loans, all these things collectively create the -- a reality of a president who has been anti-investment, anti-jobs, anti-business, and people feel that.
And if you want to get this country going again, you have to recognize that the role of government is not just to catch the bad guys, important as that is. It's also to encourage the good guys...
GREGORY: All right.
ROMNEY: ... and to return America to a land of opportunity.
GREGORY: Back to John and Andy.
John, go ahead.
HILLER: Governor Romney, I'm going to stay with you for one moment here on the -- talking about regulation. One of your prime New Hampshire supporters, Senator Kelly Ayotte, has said, quote, "New Hampshire should not be the tailpipe for pollutants from out-of-state power plants."
Many Senate Republicans attacked an EPA rule limiting air pollution that affects downwind states, but she and others, including Scott Brown, joined with the president and Senate Democrats to block a repeal effort.
Now, is this an example, this cross-state air pollution rule, of fair regulation, something that we in the Northeast are very concerned about in terms of pollution? Or is this overregulation, job-killing overregulation?
ROMNEY: Well, I'm not -- I'm not familiar with the specific regulation as it -- as it applies to -- to New Hampshire. But I do believe that we have a responsibility to keep the air clean, and we have to find ways to assure that we don't have the pollution of one state overwhelming the -- the ability of another state to have clean air.
I know, in my state of Massachusetts, we -- we received a lot of air from the rest of the country, obviously, given the winds coming from the west of the country to the east. And so the responsibility in our state was to get the cost -- get the -- the emissions from our power plants down. That's one of the reasons why we moved to natural gas.
And, really, by the way, this discussion about energy and security, and getting the cost of gasoline down, the big opportunity here is not just a new oil distribution system, but it's natural gas. We have massive new natural gas reserves that have been found in Pennsylvania, in -- in North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, natural gas cheap, a fraction of the cost for BTU of oil.
If we want to help people in New England have not only homes and businesses that emit less pollutant into the air -- and therefore would have cleaner air -- and also have lower cost of energy, it's let's build out this natural gas system so that we can take advantage of that new, enormous source of American economic strength.
DISTASO: Speaker Gingrich, what exactly is an Environmental Solutions Agency? I don't -- I think a lot of people might not know or understand that -- why you want to disband the EPA and set up -- set up something that kind of looks like the EPA?
GINGRICH: If you look at the EPA's record, it is increasingly radical. It's increasingly imperious. It doesn't cooperate, it doesn't collaborate and it doesn't take into account economics. The city of Nashville recently had a dump that was cited by EPA. They went down to find out, what was it being cited for? And they told them, frankly we don't know. We can't find the records that lead to this citation and we're not exactly sure what it referenced. But it must be bad or we wouldn't have sent it out.
(LAUGHTER)
GINGRICH: In Iowa they had a dust regulation underway because they control particulate matter. I do agree on clean air. There are things they should do that are right. But dust in Iowa is -- is an absurdity. And they were worried that the plowing of a cornfield would leave dust to go to another farmer's cornfield. And they were going to -- they were planning to issue a regulation. In Arizona they went in on the dust regulation and suggested to them that maybe if they watered down the earth, they wouldn't have these dust storms in the middle of the year. And people said to them, you know the reason it's called a desert...
(LAUGHTER)
GINGRICH: ...is there's no water. Now this is an agency out of touch with reality which I believe is incorrigible and you need a new agency that is practical, has commonsense, uses economic factors and in the case of -- of pollution actually incentives change, doesn't just punish it.
DISTASO: All right, Andy?
HILLER: Governor Perry, your party's last nominee, John McCain wrote in the Washington Post in an op-ed about a year ago, his words, "I disagree with many of the president's policies but I believe he is a patriot, sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America, or opposed to it's founding ideals." Agree?
PERRY: I make a very proud statement and, in fact that we have a president that's a socialist. I don't think our founding fathers wanted America to be a socialist country. So I disagree with that premise that somehow or another that President Obama reflects our founding fathers. He doesn't. He talks about having a more powerful, more centralized, more consuming and costly federal government.
I am a Tenth Amendment believing governor. I truly believe that we need a president that respects the Tenth Amendment, that pushes back to the states. Whether it's how to deliver education, how to deliver health care, how to do our environmental regulations. The states will considerably do a better job than a one-size-fits-all Washington, D.C. lead by this president.
GREGORY (?): Can I just jump in? Senator Santorum, Governor Perry -- he called the president a socialist. I wonder Senator Santorum, when you voted for a new prescription drug benefit that did not have a funding mechanism, were you advancing socialism?
SANTORUM: Why -- I said repeatedly that we should have had a funding mechanism and it's one of those things that I had a very tough vote, as you know. In that bill we had health savings accounts. Something I've been fighting for, for 15 years to transform the private sector health care system into a more consumer, bottom-up way of doing it. We also had Medicare Advantage to transform the entire Medicare system into -- Medicare Advantage is basically a premium support type model.
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: ...socialism though. That's the... (CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: I -- I think I'm just answering your question. Maybe I'm -- maybe we're not communicating well, but I just talked about the -- the medical -- it's a health savings accounts is an anti- socialistic idea to try to build a bottom-up, consumer based economy in -- in health care. The same thing with Medicare Advantage. And we also structured the Medicare Part-D benefit to be a premium support model as a way of trying to transition Medicare. So there were a lot of good things in that bill. There was one really bad thing. We didn't pay for it. We should have paid for it. And that was a mistake.
GREGORY: You want to have a follow up on that?
HILLER: No, I'm going to switch to Congressman Paul and I'm going to say, many Americans, particularly Democrats, think that health care is a right. In your opinion, what services are all Americans entitled to expect to get from government?
PAUL: Entitlements are not rights. Right mean you have a right...
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: ...rights mean you have a right to your life. You have a right to -- to your liberty and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor. And this is quite a bit different, but earlier on there was a little discussion here about gay rights. I in a way don't like to use those terms, gay rights, woman's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right. It's the right to your liberty. And I think this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups, because for too long we punish groups. So the answer then was, let's -- let's relieve them by giving them affirmative action.
So I think both are wrong. If you think in terms of individuals and protect every single individuals, no, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys get -- the rich people. They run the entitlement system, the military industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.
GREGORY: Dr. Paul, thanks.
In our remaining moment here, back to you, John.
DISTASO: OK. Well, Governor Huntsman, Andy and I are about to wrap up our role in this debate. And as we do, I'd like to ask you, as someone who's been here in New Hampshire a while, what does our state motto, "Live Free or Die," mean to you personally? And how would it guide you in the White House?
HUNTSMAN: It is the fulfillment of a citizenry being able to live out the meaning of our founding documents: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And everywhere I've gone in this great state -- and we've done 160-plus public events... (APPLAUSE)
... I feel it, and I sense it, and people take that very seriously. You know what else they take seriously? They take seriously the idea of real leadership.
I've heard a lot of obfuscating up here, the blame game, talking about gays, talking about unions. Everybody's got something nasty to say. You know what the people of this country are waiting for and the people of -- they want a leader who is going to unify, who's going to bring us together. Because at the end of the day, that's what leadership is all about.
It's not about taking on different groups and vilifying them for whatever reason. It's about projecting a vision for a more hopeful tomorrow. That's why there is no trust in this country today. And that's why, as president, I'm going to attack that trust deficit just as aggressively as I attack that economic deficit. Because with no trust, I can't think of anything more corrosive longer term to the people of this nation.
GREGORY: All right. We're going -- we're going to leave it there.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, John, thank you, Andy, both. We're going to take another quick break here. I'll be back with a final round of questions, including your questions from our "Meet the Press" Facebook page. We're back with our final moments in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: We are back.
Gentlemen, candidates, we have just a few minutes left. And I'd like to try something, because I do want to get to as much substance and pin you down on views as best I can.
I know this could be hard for you, but you are spending a lot of money getting your message out in 30 second increments, based on what I've been watching in the hotel room here in New Hampshire. So I know you know how to do this.
Let's try having 30 second answers to some of these questions and we might have some response along the way.
Senator Santorum, I want to ask you about Iran. It's been a big issue in the course of this campaign so far.
I wonder why it is, if America has lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we have come to live with a nuclear North Korea, why is it that we cannot live with a nuclear Iran?
And if we can't, are you prepared to take the country to war to disarm that country?
SANTORUM: They're a -- they're a theocracy. They're a theocracy that has deeply embedded beliefs that -- that the afterlife is better than this life. President Ahmadinejad has repeatedly said the principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran is martyrdom.
So when your principle virtue is to die for your -- for Allah, then it's not a deterrent to have a nuclear threat, if they would use a nuclear weapon. It is, in fact, an encouragement for them to use their nuclear weapon. And that's why there's a difference between the Soviet Union and China and others and Iran. GREGORY: What about Pakistan?
They are an indifferent ally, at best. They have nuclear weapons.
Are you also prepared, as president, to say they must disarm or else?
SANTORUM: They are not a theocracy. And we're very hopeful of -- of maintaining a -- a more secular state than -- than is in place today.
But there is a serious threat. And this administration has bungled it about as badly as they can in trying to con -- continue those positive relationships. We've had some real serious problems with the -- with the Pakistani military, obviously, with respect to Osama bin Laden and with respect to North Waziristan.
But you have a -- the reason is we have a president who's just very weak in -- in that region of the world and is not respected...
GREGORY: All right.
SANTORUM: -- and -- and therefore, he's not a -- he's not been able to have that strong hand in working with Pakistan that they're used to.
GREGORY: Speaker Gingrich, how about tone of this campaign?
I was in Iowa. I heard you on the stump. You complained bitterly about the super PAC, the outside groups that were lodging charges against you, bringing up some old issues against you.
And now you have a former campaign spokesman who is preparing attacks against Governor Romney, calling him, quote, "a predator" for his involvement at the investment company, Bain.
You agreed with someone who said that Governor Romney was a liar when he didn't take account for those attacks against you.
Are you consistent now, as you're preparing to launch against Governor Romney?
GINGRICH: Sure.
GREGORY: How so?
GINGRICH: I'm consistent because I think you ought to have fact- based campaigns to talk about the records.
GREGORY: Calling him a predator is not over the line?
GINGRICH: Well, I think you have to look at the film, which I haven't seen. But if you look at "The New York Times" article, I think it was on Thursday, you would clearly have to say that Bain, at times, engaged in behavior where they looted a company, leaving behind 1,700 unemployed people. That's "The New York Times." That's not me.
So I think, you know, the -- I mean one of the ads I complained about got four Pinocchios from "The Wall Street" -- from "The Washington Post." Now, to get four Pinocchios in a 30 second ad means there's virtually nothing accurate...
GREGORY: All right.
GINGRICH: -- in 30 seconds.
GREGORY: Speaker, you -- you -- you decry the Washington establishment and you just talked about "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post." You have agreed with the characterization that Governor Romney is a liar.
Look at him now.
Do you stand by that claim?
GINGRICH: Well, sure. Governor, I wish you would calmly and directly state it is your former staff running the PAC. It is your millionaire friends giving to the PAC. And you know some of the ads are -- aren't true. Just say that. It's straightforward.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Well, of course it's former staff of mine. And, of course they're people who support me. They wouldn't be putting money into a PAC that supports me if they weren't people who support me.
And with regards to their ads, I haven't seen them. And, as you know, under the law, I can't direct their ads.
Speaker...
GINGRICH: Yes, but...
ROMNEY: Hold on a second. I -- I can't direct their ads. If there's anything in them that's wrong, I hope they take it out. I hope everything that's wrong...
GINGRICH: Good.
ROMNEY: -- is taken out.
But let me tell you this. The -- the ad I saw said that -- that you'd been forced out of the speakership. That was correct.
GINGRICH: (INAUDIBLE).
ROMNEY: It said that -- that you had sat down with Nancy Pelosi and -- and argued for -- for a climate change bill. That was correct. It said that you called the -- the Ron Paul's -- Ron Paul -- Paul Ryan's plan to bu -- to provide Medicare reform...
(LAUGHTER) ROMNEY: -- a -- a -- a right-wing social engineering plan. It said that -- that as part of an investigation, an ethics investigation, that you had to reimburse some $300,000. Those things were all true.
If there was something related to abortion that it said that was wrong, I hope they pulled it out. Anything wrong, I'm opposed to.
But, you know, this ain't -- this ain't beanbag. We're going to come into a campaign, and we're going to describe the differences between us. But...
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Go ahead, Speaker. Go ahead, Speaker.
ROMNEY: But I do think -- but I do think the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, I think was a little over-the-top.
GINGRICH: You think my rhetoric was over-the-top, but your ads were totally reasonable? That's what I don't understand. Look...
ROMNEY: Again -- again...
(CROSSTALK)
GINGRICH: I've taken the governor's advice.
ROMNEY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, the -- the super PACs that are out there running ads with Ron Paul's, mine, yours, as you know, that is not my ad. I don't write that ad. I can't tell them how to.
GREGORY: Well, how about this? Would you both -- would both agree to take these super PAC ads down?
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: But, Mr. Speaker, but, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't call someone the things you've called me public. I think that's just over- the-top.
GREGORY: Would you both agree that -- to -- to request that these super PAC ads be taken down?
GINGRICH: David, wait a second. Come on. Come on. I'm glad finally on this stage, weeks later, he has said, gee, if they're wrong, they should take them down. They would have course -- we've sent a letter in South Carolina saying -- warning the stations to just fact-check them before they start running them.
But I'm taking his advice. You know, we started to run his commercial from 1994 attacking Teddy Kennedy for running negative ads. We thought, no, that would be wrong.
So, instead, I -- I agree with him. It takes broad shoulders to run. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. When the 27-and-a-half-minute movie comes out, I hope it's accurate.
I -- I -- I can say publicly I hope that the super PAC runs an accurate movie about Bain. It will be based on establishment newspapers, like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Barron's, Bloomberg News. And I hope that it's totally accurate and then people can watch the 27-and-a-half minutes of his career at Bain and decide for themselves.
GREGORY: All right. Let me ask you, Senator Santorum, we've talked some about the role of government, but the presidency is often called the bully pulpit. I wonder as president how you'd use the bully pulpit to try to shape American culture and values?
SANTORUM: I haven't written a lot of books. I've written one. And it was in response to a book written by Hillary Clinton called "It Takes a Village." I didn't agree with that. I believe it takes a family, and that's what I wrote.
And I believe that there's one thing that is undermining this country, and it is the breakdown of the American family. It's undermining our economy. You see the rates of poverty among single- parent families, which are -- moms are doing heroic things, but it's harder. It's five times higher in a single-parent family.
We -- we know there's certain things that work in America. The Brookings Institute came out with a study just a few -- couple of years ago that said, if you graduate from high school, and if you work, and if you're a man, if you marry, if you're a woman, if you marry before you have children, you have a 2 percent chance of being in poverty in America. And to be above the median income, if you do those three things, 77 percent chance of being above the median income.
Why isn't the president of the United States or why aren't leaders in this country talking about that and trying to formulate, not necessarily federal government policy, but local policy and state policy and community policy, to help people do those things that we know work and we know are good for society? This president doesn't.
In fact, he has required programs not to talk about marriage, not to talk about abstinence, if -- in order to get federal funds. He's working exactly against the things...
GREGORY: Dr. Paul...
SANTORUM: ... he knows works because he has a secular ideology that is against the traditions of our country and what works.
GREGORY: Dr. Paul, quickly, how would you use the bully pulpit?
PAUL: I would continue to do what I'm doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. I think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. And that is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted a long way. It involves our right to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought to understand what sound money is all about, and we ought to understand what national defense means. That means defending this country. That is the bully pulpit we need. We need to defend liberty.
GREGORY: All right. Defend liberty and...
(APPLAUSE)
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: And liberty.
(LAUGHTER)
GREGORY: Thank you. We're going to take another break here. We'll be back with some closing moments right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GREGORY: I would like to thank the candidates for joining us. I'd also like to thank our debate partners, Facebook, the New Hampshire Union Leader, and our hosts here, of course, in Concord, the Capitol Center for the Arts. Thank you, of course, for watching and participating in this debate online.
Post-debate analysis will continue on MSNBC. Be sure to watch complete coverage of the New Hampshire primary returns. That's Tuesday night on NBC News, MSNBC, and online at nbcpolitics.com. We'll be back next week from Washington. If it's Sunday, it's "Meet the Press."

The first worthless GOP debate of 2012 starts tonight, January 7 at 9pm Eastern:
NETWORK: ABC News
MODERATORS: Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopoulos, and Josh McElveen of WMUR.
WHERE: St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire
PARTICIPANTS: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman. Michelle Bachmann won't be attending as she recently dropped out of the race.
TRANSCRIPT: When available.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: For a preview of this debate, see debates, Diane Sawyer, and George Stephanopoulos. As with all the rest, this debate will feature weak, superficial questions and few follow-ups. Any immigration ideas the candidates present will be flawed, and the moderators won't press them on their actual policies but instead will concentrate on gotcha.
SUGGESTED READING: The links in the list of candidates above and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.UPDATE: The debate was sponsored by Yahoo. Also, the full transcript follows. Note that there's not a single mention of anything relating to immigration, not even a half-hearted promise to secure the border:

SAWYER: And good evening to all of you. Welcome to Saint Anselm College and the first debate of the year, 2012. The voting is underway. And, George, those eight votes in Iowa reminded us on Tuesday every vote counts.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No question about it, we are off and running. Great to be here with you, Josh. And now let’s introduce the candidates: former Governor Jon Huntsman; Texas Congressman Ron Paul; former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney; former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum; the former speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich; and Texas Governor Rick Perry.
SAWYER: And it is time to remind everyone again of the rules, which are pretty straightforward, and we remind you again, they were negotiated and agreed to by the candidates themselves. So let’s take you through them.
One-minute responses to the question, with 30 seconds for rebuttal. And we’re showing everybody at home that the candidates will see green, and then when there’s 15 seconds left, it will turn yellow and red when the time is up.
SAWYER: Our audience was chosen by Saint Anselm College and WMUR. And all of you at home can watch on abcnews.com and yahoo.com. You can even join the discussion by downloading Yahoo’s IntoNow app on your iPhone. You can pitch in your opinions during the debate.
SAWYER: So lets the -- let the debate begin.
And, Governor Romney, we’ll begin with you. We just saw 200,000 new jobs created last month, and there are optimists who say this is the signal that this economy is finally turning around. Are you with those optimists?
ROMNEY: I’m an optimist, and I certainly hope it turns around. We have millions of people who’ve been suffering too long, 25 million people that are out of work or have stopped looking for work, and also a lot of people who’ve got part-time jobs and need full-time employment. So it’s very good news. I hope we continue to see good news.
But it’s not thanks to President Obama. His policies have made the recession deeper, and his policies have made the recovery more tepid. As a result of everything from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to a stimulus plan that was not as well directed as it should have been to a whole host of new regulations that have been put on American businesses, he’s made it harder for small entrepreneurs and big businesses to decide to invest in America and to grow jobs here.
And so the president is going to try and take responsibility for things getting better. You know, it’s like the rooster taking responsibility for the sunrise. He didn’t do it. In fact, what he did was make things harder for America to get going again.
SAWYER: I want to turn now to Senator Santorum. Senator Santorum, you have said we don’t need a CEO, we don’t need a manager as president. What did you mean by that?
SANTORUM: Well, we need a leader, someone who can paint a positive vision for this country, someone who, you know, has the experience to go out and be the commander-in-chief. I’ve experienced in eight years on the Armed Services Committee, I managed major pieces of legislation through the House and through the Senate on national security issues, like Iran, which is the most -- you want to talk about the most pressing issue that we’re dealing with today? It’s Iran.
And as Newt’s talked about many times, there’s no one that has more experience in dealing with that country than I do. And that means that we need -- we need someone who can -- who can go out and paint a vision of what America’s strength is about, let our allies know that they can trust us, let our enemies know that they have to respect us, and if they cross us, they should fear us.
SAWYER: It has been written you were talking about Governor Romney. Were you?
SANTORUM: Well, I was -- I’m talking about -- yeah, in the case of -- well, in a manager -- as you’re talking about, as far as commander-in-chief or the manager part?
SAWYER: The manager part.
SANTORUM: The manager part. Yeah, well, of course I was talking about Governor Romney. I was talking about someone who -- who -- who’s bring to the table -- he says I’m going to be, you know, I’ve got business experience. Well, business experience doesn’t necessarily match up with being the commander-in-chief of this country.
The commander-in-chief of this country isn’t a CEO. It’s someone who has to -- has to lead, and it’s also -- being the president is not a CEO. You can’t direct, you know, members of Congress and -- and members of the Senate as to how you do things. You’ve got to lead and inspire.
And that’s what -- that’s what I think the people here in -- in Iowa and in New Hampshire were looking for, someone who can inspire and paint a positive vision for this country.
And I’ve been the one that’s been able to do that and that’s the reason I think we’re doing well in the polls.
SAWYER: Governor Romney, your response?
ROMNEY: You know, I -- I think people who spend their life in Washington don’t understand what happens out in the real economy. They think that people who start businesses are just managers. People who start a -- as entrepreneurs that start a business from the ground up and -- and get customers and get investors and hire people to join them, those people are leaders.
And the chance to -- to lead in -- in free enterprise is extraordinarily critical to also being able to lead a state, like I led in Massachusetts, and, by the way, lead the Olympics.
My experience is in leadership. The people in the private sector, who are, every day, making this country a stronger nation and hiring people, they’re not successful because they’re managers, they’re successful primarily because they are leaders.
I wish people in Washington had the experience of going out and working in the real economy first, before they went there, and they’d understand some of the real lessons of leadership.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Speaker Gingrich in on this discussion, because, Mr. Speaker, a group supporting you run -- one run by one of your closest long-time advisers just put out a very scathing attack, just today, on Governor Romney, on his tenure as the CEO of that investment firm, Bain Capital.
It calls that tenure “a story of greed,” that’s a quote, saying that Bain made spectacular profits by, again, quote, “stripping American businesses of assets, selling everything to the highest bidder and often killing jobs for big financial rewards.”
Do you agree with that characterization?
NEWT GINGRICH (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I -- I haven’t seen the film, but it does reflect “The New York Times” story two days ago about one particular company. And I think people should look at the film and decide. If it’s factually accurate, it raises questions.
I’m very much for free enterprise. I’m very much for exactly what the Governor just described, create a business, grow jobs, provide leadership.
I’m not nearly as enamored of a Wall Street model where you can flip companies, you can go in and have leveraged buyouts, you can basically take out all the money, leaving behind the workers. And I think most...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that the Bain model?
GINGRICH: Well, I -- I think you have to look at the film. You have to look at “The New York Times” coverage of one particular company. And you have to ask yourself some questions.
The Governor has every right to defend that. And I think -- but I think it’s a legitimate part of the debate to say, OK, on balance, were people better off or were people worse off by this particular style of investment?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in December, you said that Governor Romney made money at Bain by, quote, “bankrupting companies and laying off employees.”
GINGRICH: That was, I think, “The New York Times” story two days ago. They took one specific company. They walked through in detail. They showed what they bought it for, how much they took out of it and the 1,700 people they left unemployed. Now that’s -- check “The New York Times” story, but that’s their story.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, your response?
ROMNEY: Well, I -- I’m not surprised to have “The New York Times” try and put free enterprise on trial. I’m not surprised to have the Obama administration do that, either. It’s a little surprising from my colleagues on this stage. We understand that in the free economy, in the private sector, that -- that sometimes investments don’t work and you’re not successful. It always pains you if you have to be in a situation of -- of downsizing a business in order to try and make it more successful, turn it around and try and grow it again.
And I’m very proud of the fact that the two enterprises I led were quite successful and the Olympics were successful. And my state was successful, the state of Massachusetts.
But in the business I had, we invested in over 100 different businesses and net-net, taking out the ones where we lost jobs and those that we added, those businesses have now added over 100,000 jobs.
I have a record of learning how to create jobs...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, there have been questions about that -- that -- that calculation of a hundred thousand jobs. So if you could explain it a little more. I -- I’ve read some analysts who look at it and say that you’re counting the jobs that were created but not counting the jobs that were taken away.
Is that accurate?
ROMNEY: No, it’s not accurate. It includes the net of both. I’m a good enough numbers guy to make sure I got both sides of that.
But -- but the -- the simple ones, some of the biggest, for instance, there’s a steel company called Steel Dynamics in Indiana, thousands of jobs there. Bright Horizons Children’s Centers, about 15,000 jobs there; Sports Authority, about 15,000 jobs there. Staples alone, 90,000 employed. That’s a business that we helped start from the ground up.
But there were some...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that includes jobs that were created even after you left, right?
ROMNEY: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Those -- those are businesses we started that continue to grow. And -- and we’re only a small part of that, by the way. We were investors to help get them going. But in some cases, businesses shrunk. We tried to help turn them around, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
But let’s not forget, this is a free enterprise system. We don’t need government to come in and tell us how to make businesses work. We need people with passion, willing to take risk and help turn things around. And where that works, you create jobs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me bring Governor Huntsman in on this, because supporters of yours have also taken aim at this tenure, Governor Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. And, you know the Democrats are preparing to do it, as well.
So on balance, should Republicans worry about this attack?
Is -- is Governor Romney’s record at Bain a weakness or a strength?
HUNTSMAN: Well, it’s -- part of his record, and therefore, it’s going to be talked about. And I think it’s fair for the people of this nation to have a conversation about one’s record. And Governor Romney can say whatever he wishes to say about it.
I also have private sector experience. I combine a little bit of what Rick Santorum talked about and what Governor Romney has. I think it’s a good balance. I come from manufacturing. People will find something in my record. But you know what, it’s important for the people to look at our records, because everybody up here has a record that ought to be scrutinized.
But it goes beyond the private sector. You know, I served as a governor. Mitt served as a governor. Others up here have had positions of responsibility. Take a look at what we did as governor. I think that is probably more telling in terms of what I would do or what Mitt would do as president of the United States.
I put bold proposals forward. I delivered a flat tax for my state. I took my state to number one in job creation, with all due respect to what Rick Perry has said about Texas, we did a little bit better. We reformed health care without a mandate. We took our state to number one as the most business-friendly state in America.
Now, in a time in our nation’s history when we so desperately need jobs, I think that’s going to be a very material part of the discussion.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: I congratulate Governor Huntsman on the success in his governorship to make the state more attractive for business. That has got to happen. But what -- I actually think it’s helpful to have people who had a job in the private sector, if you want to create jobs in the private sector. We’ve had a lot of presidents over the years who had wonderful experience. And right now we have people whose backgrounds are in the governmental sector as well as the private sector. I think now, given what America is facing globally, given an economy that has changed its dynamics dramatically over the last 10 years, you need to have someone who understands how that economy works at a very close level if we’re going to be able to post up against President Obama and establish a record that says this is different than a president who does not understand job creation.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, let’s stay on the issue of records. You’ve got a new ad up in South Carolina taking direct aim at Senator Santorum. You call him a corrupt -- a corporate lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal. You also call him corrupt in that ad.
Senator Santorum is standing right here. Are you willing to stand by those charges and explain them?
PAUL: Well, it was a quote -- somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists. But really what the whole -- there it goes again.
SANTORUM: They caught you not telling the truth, Ron.
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: But really -- what really counts is his record. I mean, he’s a big government, big spending individual. Because, you know, he preached to the fact he wanted a balanced budget amendment but voted to raise the debt to five times. So he is a big government person.
And we as Republicans know something about right to work. He supported -- he voted against right to work. He voted along with No Child Left Behind, to double, you know, the size of the Department of Education. And he also voted to -- for the prescription drug program. So he’s a big government person, along with him being very -- associated with the lobbyists and taking a lot of funds.
And also where did he get -- make his living afterwards? I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist on -- in Washington, D.C. And he has done quite well.
We checked out Newt, on his income. I think we ought to find out how much money he has made from the lobbyists as well.
STEPHANOPOULOS: A lot of charges there, Senator.
SANTORUM: Yes, I was going to say, do I have 20 minutes to answer these?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time.
SANTORUM: Let’s talk about the corruption issue. The person who -- the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. CREW is this left-wing organization that puts out a list every election of the top Republicans who have tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from PACs.
It’s a ridiculous charge. And you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that they’re corrupt. So that’s number one.
Ron, I’m a conservative. I’m not a libertarian. I believe in some government. I do believe that government has -- that as a senator from Pennsylvania that I had a responsibility to go out there and represent the interests of my state.
And that’s what I did to make sure that Pennsylvania was able, in formulas and other things, to get its fair share of money back. I don’t apologize for that any more than you did when you earmarked things and did things when you were a congressman in Texas.
As far as the money that I received, you know, I think I’m known in this race and I was known in Washington, D.C., as a cause guy. I am a cause guy. I care deeply about this country and about the causes that make me -- that I think are at the core of this country.
And when I left the United States Senate, I got involved in causes that I believe in. I went and worked at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and wrote on the cause of Iran, and wrote and lectured all over this country. I got involved with a health care company. Why? Because I was afraid of what was going to happen, and I was asked by a health care company to be on their board of directors.
Now, I don’t know whether you think board of directors are lobbyists. They’re not. That’s the private-sector experience that I’m sure that Mitt would -- would approve of.
You -- you also -- I also worked for a coal company. As I mentioned the other day, my grandfather was a coal miner. I grew up in -- in -- in the coal region. And when I left the United States Senate, one of the big issues on the table was cap-and-trade, global warming, and I wanted to stay involved in the fray.
So I contacted a local coal company from my area who -- and I asked -- I said, look, I want to join you in that fight. I want to work together with you. I want to help you in any way I can to make sure we defeat cap-and-trade. And so I engaged in that battle. And I’m very proud to have engaged in that battle.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, do you accept it?
PAUL: Well, you know, it is true -- I believe Congress should designate how the money should be spent. I agree with that. But the big difference between the way I voted and the senator voted is I always voted against the spending. I voted against all the spending. It’s only been a couple appropriations bills I voted for in the past, what, 24, 26 years I’ve been in Washington.
So you’re a big spender; that’s all there is to it. You’re a big-government conservative. And you don’t vote for, you know, right to work and these very important things. And that’s what weakens the economy. So to say you’re a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you’ve convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record.
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: No, I think I have an opportunity to respond here. I’ve convinced a lot of people of it because my record is actually pretty darn good. I -- I supported and voted for a balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto. I voted -- in fact, I used to keep track when I was in the United States Senate of all the Democratic amendments and all amendments that increased spending. I -- I put on the board -- something called a spend-o-meter.
If you look at my spending record and you -- and you take all the, quote, “spending groups,” I was rated at the top or near the top every single year.
I -- I go back to the point. I am not a libertarian, Ron. I agree with -- you vote against everything. I don’t vote against everything. I do vote for some spending. I do think government has a role to play...
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: ... particularly in defense...
STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ll let everybody get in here, but first I wanted to bring in Governor -- Governor Perry on this. We’ll stay on this subject, don’t worry about it.
PERRY: And I’ll let you -- I’ll -- I’ll let you back in here, Ron.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve called Senator Santorum the...
PERRY: Yeah. I think you’ve just seen a great example of why I got in this race, because I happen to think that I’m the only outsider, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, who has not been part of the problem in Washington, D.C., the insiders in Washington, D.C.
We -- we have to -- we have to nominate someone that can beat Barack Obama, that can get the Tea Party behind them, that can go to Washington, D.C., and stop the corrupt spending that has been going on. And it doesn’t make any difference whether you’re an insider from Washington, D.C., or you’re an insider from Wall Street.
That is what Americans rightfully see is the real problem in America today. They want someone who has a record of executive governing experience, like I have in Texas. I’ve been the commander- in-chief of 20,000-plus troops that get deployed. I have been the governor of a state that has created a million net new jobs. That is a record that American people are looking for. That is what Americans are looking for, an outsider that is not corrupted by the process.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, Governor, you’re saying Congressman Paul is an insider?
PERRY: I am telling you, anybody that has had as many -- I mean, here’s what frustrates me, is that you go get the earmarks and then you vote against the bill? Now, I don’t know what they call that in other places, but, Congressman Paul, in Texas, we call that hypocrisy.
PAUL: Well, I call it being a constitutionalist, because I believe we should earmark, or designate, every penny. You designate weapons systems. You designate money to go to spend $1 billion on an embassy in Iraq. That’s -- that’s an earmark, too. I say the Congress has more responsibility.
But this thing, back -- back to Senator Santorum, you know, he ducks behind this -- he’s for this balanced budget amendment, but voted five times to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars. This is what the whole Tea Party movement’s about.
When -- I mean, government’s practically stopped over increasing the national debt. You did it five times. So what’s your excuse for that? That’s trillions of dollars. You kept this thing going. You didn’t do very much to slow it up when you had a chance.
SANTORUM: As a matter of fact, I did slow -- do a lot to slow it up when I had a chance. I was the author of the only bill that actually repealed a federal entitlement, welfare reform. I -- I -- I actually promoted and talked -- and tried to pass Social Security reform. I worked on Medicare and Medicaid.
I was one of the only guys out there in a time, Ron, when we were running surpluses that was out there talking about the need for long- term entitlement reform, which is where the real problem is. When the government runs up a tab and you don’t have the money no -- no longer to pay, then you have to increase the debt ceiling. But every time we tried to -- we tried to tie it with reducing spending.
We’re in a point right now where we have blown the doors off of it. And as you know, back in the last -- in the last go round, I stood up and said, no we shouldn’t increase the debt ceiling because we’ve gone too far. But, you know, routine debt ceiling increases have happened throughout the -- the course of this country for 200 years.
SAWYER: If I can, I’d like to pivot and go to another topic here, which is the issue of commander-in-chief and national security. And Governor Huntsman, you have already said for us that -- that the Iranians have made the decision to go nuclear. You think they want a nuclear weapon. Tell us why you would be better as commander-in-chief than the other candidates on this stage?
HUNTSMAN: Because being commander-in-chief is less about having the discussions we just heard a moment ago. A lot of insider gobbledygook, a lot of political spin. It’s about leading organizations. It’s about leading people. It’s about creating a vision. And I have done that my entire career. I did that as governor. I took my state to the best managed state in America.
I took that economy to the number one position, number one in job creation. As compared and contrasted with Massachusetts, which was number 47 during a time when, I think, leadership matters to the American people. But more than anything else, I believe that this nation is looking for, not only leadership, but leadership that can be trusted.
Because let’s face it, we have a serious trust deficit in this nation. The American people now longer trust our institutions of power. And they no longer trust our elected officials. And I’m here to tell you that we must find, not just a commander-in-chief, not just a president, not just a visionary, but we’ve got to find somebody who can reform Congress and do what needs to be done with respect to leading the charge on term limits.
Everybody knows that Congress needs term limits. Everybody knows that we’ve got to close the revolving door that has corrupted Washington. And everybody knows as well, that we’ve got to have someone who can deliver trust back to Wall Street, which has also lost the American people’s trust.
SAWYER: Do you want to speak specifically about anyone on this stage?
HUNTSMAN: They can all speak for themselves, but I can tell you, having served as governor successfully, the only person on this stage as well to have lived overseas four times, I’ve run two American embassies, including the largest and most complicated we have in the world, the United States embassy in China. I think I understand better than anyone on this stage, the complex national security implications that we will face going forward with what is, we all know, the most complex and challenging relationship of the twenty- first century, that of China.
SAWYER: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Do you have a question or shall I just...
SAWYER: My question is the -- the governor has just said that he thinks he can speak better than anyone else to these...
ROMNEY: Well he can do a lot better than Barack Obama, lets put it that way. We -- we have a president who had no experience in leadership. He never led a -- a business, never led a -- a city, never led a -- a state. And as a result, he learned on the job being president of the United States and he has made one error after another related to foreign policy, the most serious of which relates to Iran.
We have a nation, which is intent on becoming nuclear. Iran has pursued their -- their ambition without having crippling sanctions against them. The president was silent when over a million voices took to the streets in Iran. Voices he should have stood up for and said, we’re supporting you. And he’s -- and he’s failed to put together a plan to show Iran that we have the capacity to remove them militarily from their plans to have nuclear weaponry.
Look, this is a failed presidency. And the issue in dealing with the responsibility of commander-in-chief, is the issue of saying, who has the capacity to lead? Who is someone who has demonstrated leadership capacity? Who has character, shown that character over their career? Who has integrity and -- and I hope -- I -- each of these people -- I don’t -- I don’t want to be critical of the people on this stage. Any one of these people would do a better -- a better job in many respects than our president.
And I will endorse our -- our nominee. I believe in the principles that made America such a great nation. This is a time when we’re faced, not with a nation that is -- that is extraordinarily secure in a very, very calm world. We’re facing a very dangerous world. And we have a president now who unbelievably has decided to shrink the size of the -- of the military. Who unbelievably has said, for the first time since FDR, we’re going to no longer have the capacity to fight two wars at a time.
SAWYER: I want...
ROMNEY: This president must be replaced.
SAWYER: I want to bring in Josh now.
MCELVEEN: I want to stay on the topic of commander-in-chief as well. Obviously that puts you in charge of the most powerful armed forces in the world. Only two of you on stage have served in the military. Dr. Paul was a flight surgeon, Governor Perry a pilot. There are 25 million veterans in this country, three million currently serving active duty so this question is very relevant to a large number of voters out there.
My question goes to you, Governor Perry. Do you believe having worn a uniform, being part of a unit, better prepares you for the job of commander-in-chief than those on the state who haven’t served?
PERRY: I think it brings a very clear knowledge about what it requires for those that are on the front lines, but also having been the governor of the state of Texas and been the commander-in-chief for 11 years there and 20,000-plus troops that we’ve deployed to multiple theaters of operation.
But I want to go back to this issue that we just brought up earlier when we talked about one of the biggest problems facing this country, and Iran’s a big problem, Senator, without a doubt. But let me tell you what this president is doing with our military budget is going to put our country’s freedom in jeopardy.
You cannot cut $1 trillion from the Department of Defense budget and expect that America’s freedoms are not going to be jeopardized. That, to me, is the biggest problem that America faces, is a president that doesn’t understand the military and a president who is allowing the reduction of the DOD budget so that he can spend money in other places, and it will put America’s freedom in jeopardy.
MCELVEEN: Talk about the understanding of the military. And let’s go to you, Speaker Gingrich. Recently, Dr. Paul referred to you as a chicken hawk because you didn’t serve. Given what you just heard Governor Perry say about understanding the military and Dr. Paul’s comments. How do you respond?
GINGRICH: Well, Dr. Paul makes a lot of comments. It’s part of his style.
My father served 27 years in the Army in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. I grew up in a military family, moving around the world. Since 1979, I have spent 32 years working, starting with the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command. I was the longest-serving teacher in the senior military for 23 years. I served on the Defense Policy Board. But let me say something about veterans, because as an Army brat whose family was deeply engaged, I feel for veterans. We had a great meeting today in Wolfeboro with veterans. And I made a commitment in New Hampshire that we would reopen the hospital in Manchester, we would develop a new clinic in the north country using telecommunications, and we would provide a system where veterans could go to their local doctor or their local hospital.
The idea that a veteran in the north country in midwinter has to go all the way to Boston is absolutely, totally, fundamentally wrong. And I would say, as an Army brat who watched his mother, his sisters, and his father for 27 years, I have a pretty good sense of what military families and veterans’ families need.
SAWYER: Congressman Paul, would you say that again? Would you -- would you use that phrase again?
PAUL: Yeah. I -- I think people who don’t serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren’t -- they -- they have no right to send our kids off to war, and -- and not be even against the wars that we have. I’m trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up.
But, you know, the -- the veterans’ problem is a big one. We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven’t been won, they’re unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have -- I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we’ve lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war.
So, Rick keeps say we -- you don’t want this libertarian stuff, but what I’m talking about, I don’t bring up the word. You do. But I talk about the Constitution. Constitution has rules. And I don’t like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars, and when those individuals didn’t go themselves, and then come up and when they’re asked, they say, oh, I don’t think I could -- one person could have made a difference.
I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: Well, Dr. Paul has a long history of saying things that are inaccurate and false. The fact is, I never asked for deferment. I was married with a child. It was never a question. My father was, in fact, serving in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta at the time he’s referring to.
I think I have a pretty good idea of what it’s like as a family to worry about your father getting killed. And I personally resent the kind of comments and aspersions he routinely makes without accurate information and then just slurs people with.
PAUL: I need one quick follow-up. When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: I wasn’t eligible for the draft. I wasn’t eligible for the draft.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Paul, while -- while we’re on the subject, the speaker said that you’ve had a history of inaccurate statements. There has been quite a bit controversy over this newsletter that went out under your name, a number of comments that were perceived as racist, as inaccurate. You’ve said that even though they were written under your name, that you’re not necessarily -- that you didn’t necessarily know they were written, you don’t necessarily stand by them. Can you really take the time now and explain to everybody what happened there, how it was possible that those kind of comments went out under your name without you knowing about it?
PAUL: Well, it’s been explained many times, and everything’s written 20 years ago, approximately, that I did not write. So concentrating on something that was written 20 years ago that I didn’t write, you know, is diverting the attention from most of the important issues.
But the inference is obvious that -- and you even bring up the word racial overtones. More importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship is for racial relationships. And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks did.
But, also, I’m the only one up here and the only one in the Democratic Party that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system. And it has to do with enforcing the drug laws.
Look at the percentages. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They’re -- they’re prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately. They get -- they get the death penalty way disproportionately.
How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution?
But poor minorities have an injustice. And they have an injustice in war, as well, because minorities suffer more. Even with a draft -- with a draft, they suffered definitely more. And without a draft, they’re suffering disproportionately.
If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly enforced.
SAWYER: We want to thank you for the first round of this debate.
And we want to take a break right now.
And when we come back, there are so many family issues, the issues of gay rights, that have been front and center in this campaign.
We’d love to have you address some of those.
Again, thank you for being with us.
This is the 2012 debate at St. Anselm.
We’ll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve got a new ad up in South Carolina taking direct aim at Senator Santorum. You call him a corrupt -- a corporate lobbyist, a Washington insider with a record of betrayal. You also call him corrupt in that ad.
Senator Santorum is standing right here.
Are you willing to stand by those charges and explain them?
PAUL: Well, it was a quote. Somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals, because he took so much money from the lobbyists. But, really, what the whole...
(FEEDBACK NOISE)
PAUL: There it goes again.
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: But -- but...
SANTORUM: They -- they’ve caught you not telling the truth, Ron (INAUDIBLE).
PAUL: But what real -- really...
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: What really counts is -- is his record. I mean he’s a big government, big spending individual.
SANTORUM: The group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. It’s -- it’s a ridiculous charge. It’s -- and -- and you should know better.
ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in Manchester. Governor Romney, I want to go straight to you.
Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that...
SANTORUM: No, I said -- let’s be clear.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Absolutely. I’m giving you your due...
SANTORUM: I’m talking about -- we’re talking about the 10th Amendment and the right of states to act.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I do want to get to that core question.
SANTORUM: OK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
ROMNEY: George, this is an unusual topic that you’re raising. States have a right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine a state banning contraception. I can’t imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so, and if I were a governor of a state or...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, the Supreme Court has ruled --
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: ... or a -- or a legislature of a state -- I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so, you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sure Congressman Paul...
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK, come on -- come on back...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?
ROMNEY: George, I -- I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no -- no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on...
ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court -- has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.
ROMNEY: The -- I believe in the -- that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court -- and occasionally I do -- then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it’s -- it’s known as the amendment process.
And -- and where we have -- for instance, right now we’re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of -- of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.
ROMNEY: I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.
And by the way, if the people say it should be in the federal Constitution, then instead of having unelected judges stuff it in there when it’s not there, we should allow the people to express their own views through amendment and add it to the Constitution. But this idea that justice...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But should that be done in this case?
ROMNEY: Pardon?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Should that be done in this case?
ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case -- this case to allow states to ban contraception? No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?
With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE) STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn...
(SOMEONE IN AUDIENCE YELLING)
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.
PAUL: He mentioned my name.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead then.
PAUL: I didn’t know whether I got time when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.
This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it’s not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: What’s the question?
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: On the right to privacy and the response to Congressman Paul.
SANTORUM: Well, Congressman Paul is talking about privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment, which I agree with him in, I don’t necessarily agree that the Patriot Act violates that. But I do agree with -- obviously we have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. But that’s not what the Griswold decision nor the Roe v. Wade decision were about.
They created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution. And what I’ve -- and that’s, again, I sort of agree with Governor Romney’s assessment -- legal assessment, it created a right through boot-strapping, through creating something that wasn’t there. I believe it should be overturned.
I am for overturning Roe versus Wade. I do not believe that we have a right in this country, in the Constitution, to take a human life. I don’t think that’s -- I don’t think our founders envisioned that. I don’t think the writing of the Constitution anywhere enables that. SAWYER: I want to turn now, if I can, from the Constitutional and the elevated here, to something closer to home and to maybe families sitting in their living rooms all across this country.
Yahoo! sends us questions, as you know. We have them from real viewers. And I’d like to post one, because it is about gay marriage. But at the level -- and I would really love to be able to ask you what you would say personally, sitting in your living rooms, to the people who ask questions like this.
This is from Phil in Virginia. “Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?” And, Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: Well, I think what I would say is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. For example, you’re in a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that.
You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis.
The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the core of our civilization. And it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it’s just a civil right.
It’s not. It is a part of how we define ourselves. And I think that a marriage between a man and a woman is part of that definition.
SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, you’ve talked about civil unions. How do you disagree with the others on this stage?
HUNTSMAN: Well, personally, I think civil unions are fair. I support them. I think there’s such a thing as equality under the law.
I’m a married man. I’ve been married for 28 years. I have seven kids. Glad we’re off the contraception discussion.
(LAUGHTER)
Fifteen minutes’ worth, by the way. And I don’t feel that my relationship is at all threatened by civil unions. On -- on marriage, I’m a traditionalist. I think that ought to be saved for one man and one woman, but I believe that civil unions are fair. And I think it brings a level of dignity to relationships. And I believe in reciprocal beneficiary rights. I think they should be part of civil unions, as well. And states ought to be able to talk about this. I think it’s very -- I think it’s absolutely appropriate.
MCELVEEN: I’d like to go to Senator Santorum with a similar topic. We’re in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry. Eighteen hundred, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. The legislature passed it a couple of years ago. And they’re trying to start families, some of them.
Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?
SANTORUM: Well, this isn’t a federal issue. It’s a state issue, number one. The states can make that determination, in New Hampshire.
My -- my feeling is that this is an issue that should be -- I believe the issue of marriage itself is a federal issue, that we can’t have different laws with respect to marriage. We have to have one law. Marriage is, as Newt said, a foundational institution of our country, and we have to have a singular law with respect to that. We can’t have somebody married in one state and not married in another.
Once we -- if we were successful in establishing that, then this issue becomes moot. If we don’t have a -- a federal law, I’m certainly not going to have a federal law that bans adoption for gay couples when there are only gay couples in certain states. So this is a state issue, not a federal issue. MCELVEEN: Well, let me ask you to follow up on that, if you don’t mind, Senator. With those 1,800 -- if you -- we have a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, what happens to the 1,800 families who have married here? Are their marriages basically illegitimate at this point?
SANTORUM: If we have a -- if the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman, then marriage is between a man and a woman. And -- and, therefore, that’s what marriage is and -- and would be in this country. And those who are not men and women who are married are -- would not be married. That’s what the Constitution would say.
SAWYER: If I could come back to the living room question again, Governor Romney, would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, “We simply want to have the right to,” as the -- as the person who wrote the e-mail said -- “we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.” In human terms, what would you say to them?
ROMNEY: Well, the answer is, is that’s a wonderful thing to do, and that there’s every right for people in this country to form long- term committed relationships with one another. That doesn’t mean that they have to call it marriage or they have to receive the -- the approval of the state and a marriage license and so forth for that to occur.
There can be domestic partnership benefits or -- or a contractual relationship between two people, which would include, as -- as Speaker Gingrich indicated, hospital visitation rights and the like. We can decide what kinds of benefits we might associate with people who form those kind of relationships, state by state.
But -- but to say that -- that marriage is something other than the relationship between a man -- a man and a woman, I think, is a mistake. And the reason for that is not that we want to discriminate against people or to suggest that -- that gay couples are not just as loving and can’t also raise children well.
But it’s instead a recognition that, for society as a whole, that the nation presumably will -- would be better off if -- if children are raised in a setting where there’s a male and a female. And there are many cases where there’s not possible: divorce, death, single parents, gay parents, and so forth.
But -- but for a society to say we want to encourage, through the benefits that we associate with marriage, people to form partnerships between men and women and then raise children, which we think will -- that will be the ideal setting for them to be raised.
SAWYER: Speaker Gingrich has to weigh in.
GINGRICH: I just want to raise -- since we’ve spent this much time on these issues -- I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?
The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: As you can tell, the people in this room feel that Speaker Gingrich is absolutely right and I do too. And -- and I was in a state where the Supreme Court stepped in and said, marriage is a relationship required under the Constitution for -- for people of the same sex to be able to marry. And John Adams, who wrote the Constitution, would be surprised.
And -- and it did exactly as Speaker Gingrich indicated, what happened was Catholic charities that placed almost half of all of the adoptive children in our state, was forced to step out of being able to provide adoptive services. And the state tried to find other places to help children that we -- we have to recognize that -- that this decision about what we call marriage, has consequence which goes far beyond a loving couple wanting to form a long-term relationship.
That they can do within the law now. Calling it a marriage, creates a whole host of problems for -- for families, for the law, for -- for -- for the practice of -- of religion, for education. Let me -- let me say this, 3,000 years of human history shouldn’t be discarded so quickly.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Paul -- Congressman Paul, let me bring this to you. You’re running here in the Republican primary, but you haven’t promised to support the party’s nominee in November. And you refuse to rule out running as a third party candidate if you fail to get the nomination. Why not rule that out?
PAUL: Well I essentially have. It’s just that I don’t like absolutes like, I will never do something. But no...
SANTORUM: You’ve never done it for a debt ceiling.
PAUL: Please don’t interrupt me.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: So, I have said it in the last go-around, I said -- they asked me that about 30 times. I think maybe you’ve asked me four or five already. And the answer is always the same. You know, no, I have no plans to do it. I don’t intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit harder and said why don’t you plan to do it? I just -- I don’t want to. So I have no intention. But I don’t know why a person can’t reserve a judgment and see how things turn out? You know, in many ways I see the other candidates as very honorable people, but I sometimes disagree with their approach to government.
And I’d like to see some changes. I -- I want to see changes. When they’re talking about a -- a little bit of a difference in foreign policy and -- and interest in the Federal Reserve, a change in the monetary policy. We haven’t heard one talk -- minute of talk about cutting any spending. we’ve talked previously about cutting the military spending. That’s cutting proposed increases. This is why I have proposed that we cut a whole trillion dollars that first year.
If we’re serious as Republicans and conservatives, we have to cut. So I want to put as much pressure on them as I can. But besides, I’m doing pretty well, you know? Third wasn’t too bad. I wasn’t too far behind. And doing pretty well. Catching up on Mitt every single day.
(LAUGHTER)
SAWYER: Governor Perry, do you think everyone on this stage should rule out third party candidacy?
PERRY: I think anyone on this stage is better than what we’ve got in place. And -- and -- and let me just address this -- this issue of -- of gay marriage just very quickly. And -- and it’s a bigger issue frankly. I am for a constitutional amendment that says that marriage is between a man and a woman at the federal level.
But this administration’s war on religion is what bothers me greatly. When we see an administration that will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, that gives their Justice Department clear instructions to go take the ministerial exception away from our churches where that’s never happened before. When we see this administration not giving money to Catholic charities for sexually trafficked individuals because they don’t agree with the Catholic church on abortion, that is a war against religion. And it’s going to stop under a Perry administration.
(APPLAUSE)
SAWYER: I would like to turn now if I can back to foreign policy and, Governor Huntsman. Afghanistan, 90,000 troops tonight and we salute them all serving in Afghanistan. What is the earliest you think they should be brought home?
HUNTSMAN: You know we’ve been at the war on terror for 10 years now, we’ve been in Afghanistan. And I say we’ve got a lot to show for our efforts and I, as president, would like to square with the American people on what we have to show for it. The Taliban is no longer in power. We’ve run out al Qaeda, they’re now in sanctuaries. We’ve had free elections. Osama bin Laden is no longer around.
We have strengthened civil society. We’ve helped the military. We’ve helped the police. I believe it’s time to come home. And I would say within the first year of my administration, which is to say the end of 2013, I would want to draw them down. And I want to recognize Afghanistan for what it is. It is not a counter insurgency. I don’t want to be nation building in Southwest Asia when this nation is in such need of repair.
But we do have a counter-terror mission in Southwest Asia. And that would suppose leaving behind maybe 10,000 troops for intelligence gathering, for Special Forces rapid response capability and training.
SAWYER: Governor Romney, time to come home?
ROMNEY: Well, we want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can. And Governor Huntsman says at the end of 2013 the -- the -- the president and the -- the commanders are saying they think 2014 is a better date. We’ll get a chance to see what happens over the coming year.
We want to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can. And -- and I will, if I’m president, I will inform myself based upon the experience of the people on the ground that are leading our effort there. I want to make sure that we hand off the responsibility to an Afghan security force that is capable of maintaining the sovereignty of their nation from -- from the Taliban.
But -- but I can -- but I can tell you this, I don’t want to do something that would put in jeopardy much of the -- the hard earned success which we’ve had there. And I would bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, of course, based upon my own experience there, going there, informing myself of what’s happening there and listening to the commanders on the ground.
SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, you have a disagreement?
HUNTSMAN: Yes. I would have to tell Mitt that the president of the United States is the commander-in-chief. Of course you get input and -- and advice from a lot of different corners of Washington, including the commanders on the ground.
But we also deferred to the commanders on the ground in about 1967, during the Vietnam War, and we didn’t get very good advice then.
Here’s what I think is around the corner in Afghanistan. I think civil war is around the corner in Afghanistan. And I don’t want to be the president who invests another penny in a civil war. And I don’t want to be the president who sends another man or woman into harm’s way that we don’t -- we’re not able to bring back alive.
I say we’ve got something to show for our mission. Let’s recognize that and let’s move on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, do you have any quarrel with that?
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Well, I -- I think, look, I think we’re asking the wrong questions. Afghanistan is a tiny piece of a gigantic mess that is very dangerous. Pakistan is unstable and they probably have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. Iran is actively trying to get nuclear weapons. I mean they go out and practice closing the Strait of Hormuz, where one out of every six barrels of oil goes through every day.
And if they close the Straits of Hormuz, you have an industrial depression across the planet within 48 hours. You have the Muslim Brotherhood winning the elections in Egypt. The truth is, we don’t know who’s in charge in Libya.
You have a -- you have a region-wide crisis, which we have been mismanaging and underestimating, which is not primarily a military problem. We’re not going to go in and solve Pakistan militarily. We’re not going to go in and solve all these other things.
Look at the rate at which Iraq is decaying. I mean they began decaying within 24 hours of our last troops leaving.
And I think we need a fundamentally new strategy for the region comparable to what we developed to fight the cold war. And I think it’s a very big, hard, long-term problem, but it’s not primarily a military problem.
SAWYER: Senator Santorum, would you send troops back into Iraq right now?
SANTORUM: Well, I wouldn’t right now, but I did...
SAWYER: If you were president...
SANTORUM: But what I would say is that -- that Newt is right, we need someone who has a -- a strong vision for the region and we have not had that with this president. He has been making mistakes at every turn in Iran, in Egypt, I would argue, Libya, Syria, Israel. All of these places, he has made mistakes on the ground that have shown the people in that region that we are the weak horse. That is something that cannot happen because it will cause events like you’re seeing in the Straits of Hormuz. There will be push, push. America is soft and so they can be pushed around.
That’s what this administration has done. They did it by withdrawing from Iraq, and as Newt just said, you want to see what’s going to happen, Jon, if we take -- if we get -- get out of Afghanistan. Let’s just wait the next few weeks and months and see how things turn out when the United States isn’t there and see how consequential our -- our -- our efforts are -- were for the stability of that region...
HUNTSMAN: So how long do you want to wait, Rick?
How long do you want to wait?
SANTORUM: Until the security of our country is ensured. That’s what the job of the commander-in-chief is. And you make that decision -- not the generals -- you make that decision based on an analysis of understanding how virulent the threat of radical Islam is. And you confront that threat not just militarily, and importantly not just militarily. You confront it first by being honest with the American public about what this threat is. This president has sanitized every defense document, everything. There’s no -- the -- the word radical Islam doesn’t appear anywhere.
Why?
Because we are fighting political correct -- we’re trying to fight this politically correct war and not being honest with the American public as to who the enemy is, how virulent they are and why they hate us and what we must do to stop them.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Perry, we know you have differences with President Obama, but who’s got the better of this argument right here between Senator Santorum and Governor Huntsman?
PERRY: Well, I think that you have to -- I would send troops back into Iraq, because I will tell you...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now?
PERRY: I -- I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there. The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country, with all of the treasure, both in blood and money, that we have spent in Iraq, because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal, leftist base and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that timeframe.
I think it is a huge error for us. We’re going to see Iran, in my opinion, move back in at literally the speed of light. They’re going to move back in, and all of the work that we’ve done, every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we’ve got a president that does not understand what’s going on in that region.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Speaker, do you agree, send back troops into Iraq right now?
GINGRICH: Well, no. But let me put it in context.
I was very honored today to have Bud McFarlane come to introduce me at our veterans rally. Bud was for five years Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser, and I worked with him in the ‘80s on the strategy to defeat the Soviet empire.
Here’s the key thing to remember. If you’re -- if you’re worried about the Iranians in Iraq, develop a strategy to replace the Iranian dictatorship and Iraq will be fine. If you want to stop Wahhabism, get an American energy policy so no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king, and then you can put pressure on the Saudis, because you have enough American energy. Stop...
(APPLAUSE)
SAWYER: Governor Romney -- Governor Romney, you’ve said that you would not send troops in right now, but give us a sense of the trigger. What would it take for you to send troops back in?
ROMNEY: It’s a very high hurdle. The decision to send our men and women into harm’s way is one which would made -- be made with great seriousness and sobriety and...
(CROSSTALK)
SAWYER: What kind of things?
ROMNEY: Well, you can’t begin to say what the specific circumstances would be, but it would have to require significant, dramatic American interests. You’d have to have a president that explained those interests to the American people, that also indicated how we’re going in. We’d go in with -- with exceptional force. We would indicate what -- how success would be defined, how we would define, also, when we’re completed, how we’d get our troops out, and what would be left behind.
The president didn’t do that in Libya. The president hasn’t done that anywhere. I find it amazing that we have troops in harm’s way around the world -- and in Afghanistan right now, in Iraq in the first three years of this president’s term -- he doesn’t go on TV and talk to the American people every month about the sacrifice being made by these men and women.
I find it extraordinary that -- that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. So the -- the hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm’s way is very, very high. And the -- the test is America’s interests, our security interests. And they have to be involved in a very significant way to deploy our troops.
MCELVEEN: I want to give Congressman Paul a chance to weigh in here, because foreign policy is something that a lot of people think is your Achilles’ heel when it comes to getting elected. You have said that you wouldn’t have authorized the raid to get Osama bin Laden. You think that a nuclear Iran is really none of our business. How do you reconcile that, when part of your job as president would be to...
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Well, I think -- I think that’s a misquote. I don’t want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I voted to go after bin Laden, so that, you know, takes care of that.
But, you know, this business about when to go in, I don’t think it’s that complicated. I think we’ve made it much more complicated than it should be. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but he’s not the king. And that’s why we fought a revolution, not to have a king and decide when we go to war.
We would have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we only had gone to war in a proper manner, and the proper manner is the people elect congressmen and senators to make a declaration of war, and then we become the commander-in-chief, and we make these decisions.
But we went into Afghanistan. We went into Iraq. And now we’re in Pakistan. We’re involved in so many countries. Now they want to move on to Syria. And they can’t -- there’s some in Washington now can’t wait until they start bombing Iran. We have to change this whole nature. You know, something happened this week I thought was so encouraging. And it reminds me of how we finally talked to the Chinese. I mean, they had killed 100 million of their own people, but we finally broke the ice by playing ping-pong.
But today, the -- the American Navy picked up a bunch of fishermen, Iranian fishermen, that had been held by -- by the pirates, and released them. And they were so welcome, it was just a wonderful thing to happen. This is the kind of stuff we should deal with, not putting on sanctions. Sanctions themselves are -- always leads up to war. And that’s what we’re doing.
Eastern Europe is going to be destabilized if they don’t have this oil. And this just pushes Iran right into the hands of the Chinese. So our policy may be well intended, but it has a lot of downside, a lot of unintended consequences, and, unfortunately, blowback.
SAWYER: A final word on this from Senator Santorum.
SANTORUM: Well, Ron, if we had your foreign policy, there wouldn’t have been a fleet there to pick up the Iranian fishermen. And the fact is, we did have a beneficial relationship with picking them up, and we have a very great relationship, and which should be much better, with the Iranian people.
The Iranian people have come to the streets -- have taken to the streets repeatedly and still do, in trying to overthrow their government. And we had a president of the United States who stood silently by as thousands were killed on the streets, and did nothing. Did nothing.
In fact, he tacitly supported the results of the election. Now Ahmadinejad announced right after the election polls were closed that he won with 60-some percent of the vote and the president of the United States said, well, that sounds like a legitimate election. Obviously a Chicago politician.
(LAUGHTER)
And but that’s not what a president of the United States does. He doesn’t get up and condone this behavior and turn his back on the folks in the street. When I was in the United States Senate, I pushed to help those revolutionaries before the revolution, to give them resources, to make sure that we had the relationships so -- because I knew and if you take polls, they do in Iran.
The Iranian people love America because we stand up for the truth and say -- and call evil, which is what Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are, we call evil what it is. That’s why they admire us, because we tell the truth.
Now we just have to have a president that helps them to do what is necessary, which is to turn that regime out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We have got to go to break. Much more to come, we’ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: So you’re asking could it constitutionally be done? We can ask our constitutionalist here. (LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: But do you believe states have that right or not?
ROMNEY: George, I don’t know whether the state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn...
(YELLING)
ROMNEY: Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Go ahead.
PAUL: I didn’t know whether -- I didn’t know whether I got time when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can’t go into anybody’s house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAWYER: And we welcome you back. We want to tackle more on jobs right now, and specifically the ideas the candidates have, individual unique ideas for creating more American jobs, and specifically, Josh, asking about what we think created the age of American energy, which was infrastructure.
MCELVEEN: Infrastructure. And we have an example of that here in New Hampshire. If you traveled up I-93 from Boston, I-93 North, you probably went over what was a widening project that’s going on. We’re about $350 million away from getting this project completed. And a lot of people here think that this is a very important project to get done in terms of our regional economy.
So the question is, again, infrastructure. With the increasing demands on our roads and bridges, and the aging roads and bridges, how committed would you be -- and we’ll start with you, Governor Romney -- to invest -- not so much as a stimulus package, but a true economic growth package on our infrastructure?
ROMNEY: Well, there are certain things that government can do to encourage an economy. And rebuilding an infrastructure that’s aging is -- is -- is one of those. We had in my state 550 structurally deficient bridges. We’ve got to improve our bridges, improve our roads, improve our rail beds, improve our air transportation system in order to be competitive.
But fundamentally, what happens in America that creates jobs is not government. It has its role. But by and large, it gets in the way of creating jobs. It’s taxed too much. It’s regulates too much. It has energy policies that keep us from using our own energy. It has trade policies which too often favor people who are taking jobs away from us. And so we’re going to have to have government change its orientation to be encouraging the private sector.
And fundamentally, what makes America the most productive and the -- and the wealthiest nation of the major nations of the world, our GDP per capita. Our income per person in America is 50 percent higher than that of the average person in Europe. Why is that? It’s because of the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people, of the ability of Americans to innovate, to create.
We have a nation which is based upon opportunity and merit. We draw people here who seek freedom, and these people have built enterprises that employ and that make America stronger.
We have a president who has an entirely different view. He wants us to turn into a European-style welfare state and have government take from some to give to others. That will kill the ability of America to provide for a prosperous future, to secure our freedom, and to give us the -- the rights which have been in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. I believe in an America that’s based upon opportunity and freedom, not President Obama’s social welfare state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, I know you agree with Governor Romney again on his views on President Obama, but how would your plans on job creation distinguish you from Governor Romney?
GINGRICH: Well, you’re talking about infrastructure?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Infrastructure. And more broadly, job creation.
GINGRICH: But -- but -- but let’s stick with infrastructure then, because I think it’s a very big, very important topic. You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a twenty first century model. That means you’ve got to be -- you’ve got to be technologically smart and you have to make investments.
So for example here, the Northern Pass project ought to be buried and should be along the states right of way. Which means you’d need these modern techniques to bring electricity from Quebec all the way down to Boston in a way that also preserves the beauty of northern New Hampshire. I would have an energy program designed to get us free from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, two-thirds of the government revenue from that would go to debt reduction and to paying off the debt.
One-third would go to infrastructure, which would give you the ability to have an infrastructure investment program that would actually get us back on track and you look at places like the highways you’re describing, the bridges the governor just described. If you don’t have some systematic investment program, then you are not going to be able, I think, to compete with China and India.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Huntsman, where is the money going to come from?
HUNTSMAN: We’ve got to earn our way forward. There’s no question about it. Governors learn how to pay the bills. In order to pay the bills, you’ve got to expand your economic base. And that’s a problem we have in the United States right now. We read about the jobs that have ticked upward in this country and we’re all very happy about that. We’re providing people more in the way of real opportunity.
But think of where this country would be, if during the first two years of Barack Obama you had -- if you would have had a different president. I would have ripped open the tax code and I would have done what Simpson-Bowles recommended. I would have cleaned out all of the loopholes and the deductions that weigh down this country to the tune of $1 trillion, 100 billion dollars. We’ve got a corrupt tax code.
So you’ve got to say, how are we going to pay for it? We’ve got to stimulate some confidence in the -- in the creative class in this country. Right now they’re sitting on their hands. And they’re not going to have a more optimistic view of our direction...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...the same amount of revenue as Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles plan that -- that was the commission appointed by President Obama. Would anybody else -- anybody else on this stage agree with that?
SANTORUM: I’m sorry?
STEPHANOPOULOS: To raise the kind of revenues called for in the Simpson-Bowles Commission?
SANTORUM: No. No I wouldn’t. In fact our plan puts together a package that focuses on simplifying the tax code and I agree with Governor Huntsman on that. Five deductions. Health care, housing, pensions, children and charities. Everything else goes. We focus on the pillars that have -- have broad consensus of this country in the important sectors of our economy, including our children.
The other side is the corporate side. Cut it in half, 17.5 percent. But I do something different than anybody else. I’m very worried about a sector of our economy that has been under fire. I come from southwestern Pennsylvania, the heart of the steel country, the heart of manufacturing. And it’s been devastated because we are uncompetitive. Thirty years ago we were devastated because business and labor didn’t understand global competitiveness and they made a lot of mistakes. They did -- they weren’t prepared for it and we lost a lot of jobs.
That’s not what’s happening now. Our productivity gains, our labor force, their doing their job, they’re being competitive. But they’re running into a stiff headwind called government. And it’s government taxation, 35 percent corporate tax which is high -- the highest in the world. It’s a tax that doesn’t easily offset when we try to export, which makes it even more difficult...
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Everyone on this stage is for lowering the corporate tax.
SANTORUM: No one -- no one wants to zero it out for manufacturers and processors, which is what I do because we are at 20 percent cost differential with our -- with our nine top trading partners on average. And that 20 percent cost differential, that is excluding labor costs. So it is government taxation. Eliminating the corporate tax gets rid of a big chunk of that. It’s regulation. This administration is on track -- we -- I -- I think it’s the Congressional Research Service, they look at regulations and they price the highest cost ones, ones that are over $100 billion. And Bush and Clinton, they were 60 on average per year under those two administrations. Last year under President Obama, there was 150 of those types of regulations.
(CROSSTALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: ...what’s wrong with the Santorum approach...
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: ...repeal every one of them and replace them with ones that are less costly or not replace them at all.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Why not go to zero?
ROMNEY: Why not go to zero? I -- there’s no question it would be great not to have any taxes, but unfortunately we have to have taxes to pay for our military, to pay for the programs that care for those that can’t care for themselves, but our taxes are too high. Government at all levels during the days of John F. Kennedy consumed 27 percent of our economy, about a quarter. Today it consumes 37 percent of our economy.
ROMNEY: We’re only inches away from no longer being a free economy. And our Democrat friends want us to just keep raising taxes just a little more. Just give us a little more. Government is already too big. We have to reign in the scale of the federal government. And so we do need to have our employer tax rates brought down to be competitive with other nations. That’s about 25 percent. We also have to make sure that we give relief to people who need it most.
The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are the people in the middle-class. And so I put in place a significant savings incentive, tax reduction. I eliminate any tax on savings from middle income Americans. No tax on interest, dividends or capital gains. But I look long term to do just what Jon indicated, which is to take Bowles-Simpson and to reduce the rates in our tax code, to reduce the number of exemptions and -- and limit the amount of exceptions that can occur. At the same time, I don’t want to raise capital gains tax rates, as they do in Bowles-- Simpson. But simplifying the code, broadening the base is the right way to go for our tax code long term. And immediately, let’s get some relief for middle-income Americans.
SAWYER: And, Congressman Paul, we hear over and over again people are hoping for a great vision for America once again, America on the move once again. Give us the great vision that is realistic given the financial situation, a realistic great vision for America.
PAUL: Well, it’s to restore America to our freedoms, restore America to our principles, and that is individual liberty and our Constitution and sound money. But in doing that, you have to understand economics. You can’t solve any of this economic crisis unless you know where the business cycle comes from and why you have bubbles and why -- why -- why they break. You have to understand that we’ve had a financial bubble that’s been going on for 40 years. It’s collapsing. Nobody quite recognizes it, but we’re in the midst of a real big correction.
And the only way you can get back to growth is you have to liquidate the debt. But instead of liquidating debt, what we’ve done is the people who built up the debt on Wall Street and the banks, we’ve had the American taxpayer bail them out. We -- we bought it through the Federal Reserve and through the Treasury, dumped it on the American people. The middle class is now shrinking. And we don’t have jobs. But if you’re an individual or a businessman, if you’re consuming everything you’re earning just to finance your debt, you can’t have growth. So we have to liquidate debt. This is the reason I call for cutting spending, the only one that’s calling for real cuts. You have to have real cuts. That’s what the Republican Party used to stand for, but you can’t liquidate debt. You can’t -- you can’t keep bailing out the debt. That’s what Japan has done for 20 years. And they’re still in their doldrums. We did it in the depression. We’re into this now for five years, and it has to end. It’s only going to end until after we understand the business cycle.
PERRY: There is a vision. I mean, Dr. Paul, there is a vision out there, and it’s to get America back working again. I mean, the -- the idea that Americans have lost confidence in Washington, D.C., and lost confidence in Wall Street is a great example of where they want to go.
They want Washington out of their hair. They want less taxation, less regulation, less litigation. There’s a model for that in the state of Texas over the course of the last decade.
And if we will put those types of -- of -- of policies into place, we’re sitting on 300 years of energy in this country. Allow our federal lands and waters to be opened up so that we are the people who are developing domestic energy and we are not being held hostage by companies -- countries that are hostile to America.
We can put this country back to work again in the energy industry, whether it’s -- you know, any of the energy industry side, whether it’s solar or wind or oil and gas or coal. Use it all. Put the American people to work. Allow those resources off our federal lands, Dr. Paul, to be used to pay down the debt.
And I’ll tell you one of the things that can turn this economy in New Hampshire around is to pass the right-to-work law. And it will make New Hampshire a powerful magnet for jobs in the Northeast.
(APPLAUSE)
SAWYER: Governor Huntsman?
HUNTSMAN: Diane, you hit right on it, and that is, what is the vision for getting this country moving? We all have records, those of us who were governors, very specific job-creation record. I delivered a flat tax in my state. We became the top job-creator in the country. You can look at what Mitt did in Massachusetts. He was number 47.
But more to the point, I went to Lindy’s Diner in Keane and had a conversation with a guy named Jamie, who has a small motorcycle repair shop. And he said, when he grew up in Keane, it was bustling with activity. He said he had 30 different jobs growing up. He said there were four machine tool operations in that town. He said, I remember the excitement, the enthusiasm, and all of the opportunity.
And we had this conversation. I said, you know what? We are once again on the cusp of a manufacturing renaissance in this country, if we do it right. China is going down in terms of GDP growth from 8 percent, 9 percent, 10 percent to 4 percent or 5 percent, 6 percent. And as they go down in growth, unemployment goes up.
We have an opportunity to win back that manufacturing investment, if we are smart enough, with the right kind of leadership to fix our taxes. No one up here is calling for the complete elimination of all the loopholes and the deductions, where the Wall Street Journal came out and endorsed my tax plan. That’s what needs to be done, not tinkering around the edges.
If we can fix our taxes, if we can move toward a friendlier regulatory environment, this country can get back in the game again. We can rebuild our manufacturing muscle, and we can rebuild some of the job-training opportunities that we have lost over recent years.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, why not close all the loopholes, as Governor Huntsman is saying?
ROMNEY: George, let me step back from that. I know you want to ask that question. Nothing wrong with it. And I don’t want to be critical of the questions that -- that you ask and the other interviewers ask.
But -- but I think the -- the real issue is the vision for this country. And I -- I think people have to recognize that what’s at stake in this election is jobs, yes; and balancing the budget, yes; and dealing with our -- our extraordinary overhang from our -- our entitlements. We have to make sure they’re preserved, our entitlements, that is, so we don’t kill the future of the country. We’ve got a lot of issues what about.
But, really, this election is about the soul of America.
The question is, what is America going to be?
And we have in Washington today a president who has put America on a road to decline, militarily, internationally and, domestically, he’s making us into something we wouldn’t recognize.
We’re increasingly becoming like Europe. Europe isn’t working in Europe. It will never work here.
The right course for America is to return to the principles that were written down in first words in the Declaration of Independence, we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the right in this country to pursue happiness as we choose and as people pursue education and work hard and take risks and build enterprises of all kinds, they lift themselves and don’t make us poorer, they make us better off.
The question is, are we going to remain an exceptional nation, a unique nation in the history of the earth?
That’s what’s at stake in this election.
We have a president that does not understand, in his heart, in his bones, the nature of American entrepreneurialism, innovation and work. And -- and that is something which we’re fighting for in this election. I hope the people on the stage share that vision. But we must return America to the principles about -- upon which it was founded if we’re ever going to have a strong balance sheet, a strong income statement, create jobs, but have a bright future for our kids.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich, you just heard Governor Romney...
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: -- make his case. He’s...
(APPLAUSE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve made the case on several occasions that he’s not the man to carry that message for the Republican Party.
Why not?
GINGRICH: Well, look, I think that’s a good message and I agree with him. A -- a little bit harsh on President Obama, who, I’m sure in his desperate efforts to create a radical European socialist model, is sincere.
(LAUGHTER)
GINGRICH: But, you know, I think “The Wall Street Journal” captured it the other day in their dialogue, when their editorial board met and they said I had a very aggressive pro-jobs program, zero capital gains, 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, 100 percent expensing for all new equipment to dramatically modernize the system, abolish the death tax.
And they said that, by contrast -- this is their words, not mine -- that Governor Romney’s program was timid and more like Obama. Now, I would think those are fighting words. And, frankly, if he wants to fight with “The Wall Street Journal” on that, I wouldn’t blame him.
But I do think there’s a difference between a bold Reagan conservative model and a more establishment model that is a little more cautious about taking the kind of changes we need.
SAWYER: And, Josh?
MCELVEEN: Senator Santorum, you just heard from the -- both people on either side of you.
Enough substance there for you?
SANTORUM: Well, look, I -- I like the vision. As far as -- as far as substance, I agree with Speaker Gingrich. I don’t think Governor Romney’s plan is particularly bold, it -- or is particularly focused on where the problems are in this country. And the governor used a term earlier that -- that I shrink from. And -- and it’s one that I don’t think we should be using as Republicans, middle class. There are no classes in America. We are a country that don’t allow for titles. We don’t put people in classes. There may be middle income people, but the idea that somehow or another we’re going to buy into the class warfare arguments of Barack Obama is something that should not be part of the Republican lexicon. That’s their job, divide, separate, put one group against another.
That’s not the -- that’s not the language that I’ll use as president. I’ll use the language of bringing people together.
And I’ll also be able to show you that unlike some of the folks up here, that we have a consistent record of being the person to contrast ourselves on health care, for example. We’re looking for someone who can win this race, who can win this race on the economy and on the core issues of this -- of this election.
And I was not ever for an individual mandate. I wasn’t for a top down, government-run health care system. I wasn’t for the big bank of Wall Street bailout, as Governor Romney was. And I -- and I stood firm on those and worked, actually, in the coal fields, if you will, against this idea that we needed a cap and trade program.
So if you want someone that’s a clear contrast, that has a strong record, has a vision for this country that’s going to get this country growing and appeal to blue collar workers in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Michigan, in Indiana and deliver that message, that we care about you, too, not just about Wall Street and bailing them out, then I’m the guy that you want to put in the -- in the nomination.
MCELVEEN: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: My plan is a lot broader than just tax policy. The tax poli -- policy I’ve described is -- is entitled to help people in this country that desperately need help right now.
ROMNEY: There’s more to it than that. We have to open up markets for America’s goods, as the most productive people in the world, more output per person from an American than anywhere else in the world. We have to open up markets for our goods. We haven’t done that under this president.
Europe -- European nations and China over the last three years have opened up 44 different trade relationships with various nations in the world. This president has opened up none.
We have to open up trade. We have to take advantage of our extraordinary energy resources. At the same time, we’re going to have to do something about the regulations in this country.
As a party, we talk about deregulation, what we’re really shorthanding is that we want to change old regulations that are crushing enterprise and put in place those that encourage enterprise. I understand how the economy works, because I’ve lived in it.
There are a lot of guys who have spent their life in Washington, have a very valid and important experience, but they have not been on the front line competing with businesses around the world. I have.
I know what regulations kill and which regulations help enterprise. And I want to use the expertise to get America working again. And I’ll come back to the point I made at the beginning. This is bigger than that issue.
This is really an issue -- a campaign about the direction of this country. This is a choice. And by the way, if we don’t make the right choice this time, we may not be able to for a very, very long time. This is a critical time in the history of this country.
SAWYER: Governor Huntsman, vision for dealing with China, competing around the world?
HUNTSMAN: Listen, we have the most important relationship of the 21st Century with China. We’ve got to make it work. Of course we have challenges with them. We’ve had challenges for 40 years. It’s nonsense to think you can slap a tariff on China the first day that you’re in office, as Governor Romney would like to do.
You’ve got to sit down and sort through the issues of trade like you do with North Korea, like you do with Iran, like you do with Burma, and Pakistan, and the South China Sea. They’re all interrelated. And to have a president who actually understands how that relationship works would serve the interests of the people in this country, from an economics standpoint and from a security standpoint.
ROMNEY: I’m sorry, Governor, you were, the last two years, implementing the policies of this administration in China. The rest of us on this stage were doing our best to get Republicans elected across the country and stop the policies of this president from being put forward.
My own view on the relationship with China is this, which is that China is stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our know-how, our brand names. They’re hacking into our computers, stealing information from not only corporate computers but from government computers. And they’re manipulating their currency.
And for those who don’t understand the impact of that, I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it. And that is, if you hold down the value of your currency artificially, you make your products artificially low-priced and kill American jobs. That has happened here in this country.
And if I’m president of the United States, I’m not going to continue to talk about how important China is and how we have to get along. And I believe those things. They’re very important. And we do have to get along. But I’m also going to tell the Chinese it’s time to stop. You have to play by the rules. I will not let you kill American jobs any longer.
(APPLAUSE)
SAWYER: Under the rules, Governor Huntsman.
HUNTSMAN: I think it’s important to note, as they would say in China, that (speaking mandarin)...
(CROSSTALK)
HUNTSMAN: ... he doesn’t quite understand this situation. What he is calling for would lead to a trade war. It makes for easy talk and a nice applause line but it’s far different from the reality in the U.S.-China relationship.
You slap on tariffs, you talk tough like that. Of course you have, that has got to be part of it as well. But in the end, we get a tariff in return if we don’t sit down and have a logical, sensible conversation. And who does that hurt most? It hurts the small businesses and the small exporters are who trying to get back on their feet in this country in a time when this nation can least afford a trade war.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The last thing China wants is a trade war. We don’t want one either.
(CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: But they sell us this much stuff. We sell them this much stuff. Tell me, who doesn’t want the trade war? They don’t want it real bad. And we’ve been listening for 10 years from people talking about how we can’t hold China to the rules of free and fair trade and if I=’m president I will hold them to those rules. And we’ll respect each other but we are not going to let them just run all over us and steal our jobs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We’ve got to take a break. We’ll be right back with a final word.
(APPLAUSE)
ANNOUNCER: You’re watching live coverage from Manchester, New Hampshire, of the ABC News Republican Party Debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: We’re in the midst of a real big correction. And the only way you can get back to growth is you have to liquidate the debt, but instead of liquidating debt, what we’ve done is the people who build up the debt on Wall Street and the banks, we’ve had the American taxpayer bail them out.
ROMNEY: We have a nation which is based upon opportunity and merit. We draw people here who seek freedom, and these people have built enterprises that employ and that make American stronger. We have a president who has an entirely different view. He wants us to turn into a European-style welfare state.
GINGRICH: You cannot compete with China in the long run if you have an inferior infrastructure. You’ve got to move to a 21st-century model. That means you’ve got to be -- you’ve got to be technologically smart, and you have to make investments.
HUNTSMAN: We’ve got to earn our way forward. There’s no question about it. Governors learn how to pay the bills. In order to pay the bills, you’ve got to expand your economic base.
ANNOUNCER: Back live from Manchester, New Hampshire, in a moment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SAWYER: We are back and so grateful for this debate tonight. And we thought we might just end on something personal. It’s Saturday night, again, as we meet.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So if you weren’t here running for president, Governor Perry, what would you be doing on a Saturday night? PERRY: I’d probably be at the shooting range.
(LAUGHTER)
SANTORUM: Instead of being shot at.
PERRY: Yeah.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: I’d be watching the college championship basketball game.
(UNKNOWN): Football game.
GINGRICH: I mean, football game.
(LAUGHTER)
Thank you.
SANTORUM: I’d be doing the same thing with my family. We’d be huddled around, and we’d be watching the championship game.
ROMNEY: I’m afraid it’s football. I love it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Football?
ROMNEY: Yeah.
PAUL: I’d be home with my family. But if they all went to bed, I’d probably read an economic textbook.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNTSMAN: I’d be on the phone with my two boys in the United States Navy, because they’re a constant reminder of what is great about this nation and awesome about the emerging generation in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
SAWYER: And on that note, once again, we thank you all. Tuesday, the big primary in New Hampshire. And that is it for us here at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. And we want to thank all of you in the audience. And your families, once again, your families are here. And we salute all of you who have spent your Saturday night here with us, too. And we thank everybody here in New Hampshire for joining us.
And stay with ABC News. We have full coverage coming up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks to all the candidates, again. Stick with us, everyone at home. We’re going to have full analysis coming up in just a couple minutes. We’ll be right back.

[UPDATE below]
The video below is a hilariously over the top smear of Jon Huntsman that appears to have been made by a Ron Paul supporter. Entitled "Jon Huntsman's Values" and in the Youtube account NHLiberty4Paul, it has the subtitle "The Mancurian Candidate: What's He Hiding", asks if he has "American Values: Or Chinese?", features him speaking Mandarin, has photos of him with his adopted Chinese and Indian daughters, and has a drawing of him dressed as Chairman Mao.
Now, if you're reading along with the script written by many political leaders, you'll assume that the video was actually uploaded by a Ron Paul supporter because, well, that's what they are, isn't it? Everyone does remember the Ron Paul newsletters, right?
If you aren't reading along with that script, you might wonder if this is some sort of false flag operation. You might wonder if the Huntsman campaign itself uploaded the video to make Ron Paul supporters look bad and to engender sympathy for Huntsman. While the video could have been uploaded by a Ron Paul supporter, it makes much more sense that someone who isn't a Ron Paul supporter uploaded it. Mainly because that's not generally how they do things. If the video had highlighted how Huntsman is an establishment hack, or had mentioned the New World Order or similar, or had highlighted how Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread then I might be convinced it came from one of his supporters. While Ron Paul's supporters go over the top, they don't do it like the video.
Even an Andrew Breitbart site that posted the video [1] added this:

UPDATE: We've received suggestions from some readers that this video was created to "troll" Ron Paul supporters and make them look bad. It appears that the YouTube account was created just one day ago. There is no way to know for sure whether this was created sincerely on behalf of Dr. Paul or as a dirty trick against his followers. As always, we will let our readers decide.

Nothing gets past them, even if takes them a while.
So, who did it?
One Ron Paul supporter (assisted by many other supporters on Twitter) is trying to pin this on Huntsman:
theendrun . com/huntsman-complicit-in-false-flag-style-dirty-trick-against-paul
His "proof" rests on an image (below) showing that the first link to the video was at jon2012.com (Huntsman's campaign site). Yet, that means nothing. In fact, someone could have even tried to pin this on Huntsman using a cute trick, see [2]. Since that explanation is long, I've included it at [2]. However, it undercuts the strongest "proof" that site presents, so do make sure and scroll down. Besides that non-proof, he has nothing else that would prove it was Huntsman who did it.
The video could have been made to make both Ron Paul supporters and Huntsman look bad. That would be two different groups of people: the group having a lower opinion of Ron Paul supporters would be those who see the video and don't see posts like this. The group having a lower opinion of Huntsman would be those who follow along with the story and who think it was a smear by the Huntsman camp.
The video could have been made by someone like Martin Eisenstadt of the Harding Institute; see the link. It could have been made by someone like James Kirchick. Until Ron Paul fans get subpoena powers, we'll never know who uploaded the video.
One thing is clear: it's being used to make Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself look bad. And, that's despite what even Breitbart dot tv noticed: the video probably wasn't made by a Ron Paul supporter.
So, who's taking (or just presenting) this video at face value?
* The Huntsman campaign itself, with campaign spokesman Tim Miller saying: "The ad is offensive and the Paul campaign and their supporters should condemn it." The following mainstream media reports all feature the Hunstman campaign strongly condemning the ad. The fact that they're milking it for all it's worth doesn't necessarily mean they're behind it: they could just be taking advantage of an opportunity presented by someone else.
* Holly Ramer of the Associated Press ( peekURL.com/zuXBXjd )
* Shira Schoenberg of the Boston Globe ( peekURL.com/zCyWYza )
* Fox News (partly based on the AP report, peekURL.com/zmWEuRn )
* Adam Gabbatt of the Guardian ( peekURL.com/zzZ5LjZ )
* Ros Krasny of Reuters ( peekURL.com/z5cWRea )
* Salt Lake Tribune ( peekURL.com/zpX6VHg )
* Cindy McCain, wife of John McCain tweeted: "I deeply resent the video made using the adopted daughters of@jonhuntsman @ronpaul shame on you. This has shades of 2000 all over it." ("2000" is a reference to the "black baby" ad against her husband).
* Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle ( peekURL.com/zdHrYBP ). She appends this:

UPDATE: Paul supporters are fighting back Friday evening, saying that “ridiculous, pathetic joke of a video” is a “dirty trick.” And they’re following the digital bread crumbs back to the Huntsman campaign.

The last links to the endrun link above.
* John King of CNN tries to smear Ron Paul with the video at peekURL.com/vTyU9Gq
* Rachel Maddow on her 1/5/12 show (msnbc.msn . com/id/45902943/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show):

Some congratulations in order tonight for, of all people, Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. Jon Huntsman, it appears, has finally made it... ...Governor Jon Huntsman`s public profile has finally, maybe at least, risen high enough for him to earn a starring role as the villain in a remarkable new anti-Jon Huntsman attack ad. Have you seen this today? I saw this at the website Wonkette... The ad -- now, it does not appear to be an official campaign ad. It appears to have been produced by Ron Paul supporters in New Hampshire... Jon Huntsman is secretly not only the Manchurian candidate but secretly actually Chairman Mao video. That is claimed by a group called NH, New Hampshire, Liberty for Paul... Now, that group does not appear to be formally affiliated with the Ron Paul campaign by any way, shape, or form. And that may not be the most effective ad of all time.

So Jon Huntsman can speak Mandarin and also he adopted a little Chinese girl who was abandoned in a market. Providing us with yet more evidence that they are mostly liberal Democrats who are mad that Obama has governed too far to the right, Ron Paul supporters decided this was a good reason to produce a video putting Huntsman in a Mao hat and jacket, complete with what is I guess supposed to be a Chinese version of blackface... Clearly Paul’s supporters are smarting a bit from finishing well behind a guy with no money and no campaign organization in Iowa, which was their one and only chance to win a state, and are letting their true colors show. The sooner we are shed of the media treating these people as our allies, the better.

A few people in comments question whether the video is real, but most follow along with the anti-Ron Paul script.
* Liz Colville of Wonkette, referenced by Maddow above ("Paultards Hate Huntsman for Knowing Chinese, Adopting Foreigners", wonkette . com/459568/paultards-attack-huntsman-for-knowing-chinese-having-foreign-daughters):

The New Hampshire contingent of Paultards is stooping to core-of-the-earth lows today with a new ad featuring Napster-era audio quality, proof alone that the ad was definitely not made by Paul’s official moneybags campaign, but the freaks on the fringe of the fringe, who are still learning how to use a computer. In the ad, these cinematic visionaries show candidate Huntsman speaking in Mandarin and ask, “American values? Or Chinese?” and then insult Huntsman’s Indian- and Chinese-born adopted daughters. Oh boy...

That's followed by 177 comments, and I only saw one top-level comment that questioned whether the video was made by a Ron Paul supporter. All the others that I saw simply followed the script: endless PC/us-vs-the-unwashed oneupmanship via cutesy, content-free "jokes".
* Buzzfeed (Paul Supporters Launch Insane Attack On “Manchurian Candidate” Jon Huntsman, buzzfeed . com/buzzfeedpolitics/paul-supporters-launch-insane-attack-on-manchuria):

The video from Ron Paul's backers in New Hampshire - nad not the official campaign - features the former U.S. Ambassador to China speaking Chinese, and asks, "American values? Or Chinese?" It also attacks him for having adopted two of his children.

For an unexpected change of pace, one site not known for being Ron Paul fans doesn't follow the script. Jim Newell of the usually-odious Gawker asks "Who’s Behind This Stupid Jon Huntsman ‘Manchurian Candidate’ Video?" (gawker . com/5873491/whos-behind-this-stupid-jon-huntsman-manchurian-candidate-video).UPDATE: Somewhat unbelievably, the Ron Paul campaign hired a consulting firm (CanDo dot com) to look into who uploaded the video (Politico, peekURL.com/z3nVJeT ). Per the study (PDF peekURL.com/zY4YuvX ):

We thoroughly searched the Jon2012.com site using Google for any reference to this link. None existed. Furthermore, we noted that the comment function of the Jon2012.com site does not allow for hyperlinks, which would be required for YouTube to record the referring domain as Jon2012.com. Since no direct link to the video exists on Jon2012.com, how could YouTube show Jon2012.com as the referring site? Our best guess is that someone used a server on the Jon2012.com domain (such as webmail) to read an email that contained the link to the video. It is also likely that the first mobile views at that same time originated from links in emails. Clicking on a link from a webmail system on Jon2012.com would provide the needed headers for YouTube to record the link.

Their "study" is highly flawed for various reasons, and the primary one is that they didn't notice the Twitter aggregation page at [2] below. While it certainly could be possible for things to work as they describe, the far more likely explanation is that the single hit originated as described at [2]: either through Huntsman's aggregation page or possibly if it came up as a related video on a video that the Huntsman campaign did embed in their site.
Their "study" also ignores the fact that referrers can be faked. I've gotten hits at this site from lots and lots of spammers. None of those hits are from actual human clicks, and a link to this site never appeared on those sites. It was all faked (I won't explain why, search 'referrer spam" if you want to know). I've also gotten referrers from sites that would never link to me and would never embed any sort of Twitter widget. For example, if I see a referrer from "vatican.va", I know it's not a real click and I know it's not referrer spam. What happened is someone used a browser plugin that sends a fake referrer either as a joke or as a way to be more anonymous on the internet. Youtube assuredly has measures in place to deal with people who send fake referrers or fake traffic, but at the same time when a web site receives a request for a page there's no way (aside from loading the page) to find out whether it actually contains a link or embedded video.
I have a lot of experience with web development, I've run several websites for well over a decade (including the Youtube-playing peekurl.com ), and I've also discussed getting traffic and links from Youtube at this site going back years (here, here, here, and here among others). I've also gotten hundreds of thousands of views to my videos in three Youtube accounts. So, I think I've got a handle on how it all works, although I'm sure there are people out there who know more. CanDo isn't one of them.UPDATE 2: In response to a comment:
1. Any uploader can tag a Youtube video with any tags they want (probably spam terms aren't allowed of course). I could tag one or all of my videos with "jon2012girls", and that would mean as much as the video in question's tags: nothing. Youtube doesn't say that only some people can use certain tags.
2. Huntsman's site is hosted by a company called ipHouse. Other than that, I don't know how their networking is set up. They could do everything through ipHouse under the jon2012 domain, or they could split things up: use another company for mass emails, another company for internal emails, another setup for their private network, etc. etc.
3. Blaming this on Huntsman is stupid and an example of low integrity since it's all just speculation. Ron Paul fans would be wise to instead concentrate on how the media (defined very broadly) has dealt with this issue. Of course, based on my experience with them, "Ron Paul fans" and "wise" don't mix too well.
------------------
[1] breitbart . tv/paul-supporters-unauthorized-attack-on-huntsmann/
[2] Regarding the picture showing the "first" link coming from jon2012.com, that's not in any way proof.
First, Youtube statistics are notoriously unreliable: traffic that's sent them never shows up in such listings, view counts go up or down depending on which way the wind blows, and so on.
Second, as Huntsman's spokesman points out, the page jon2012.com/take-action/tweets consolidates all tweets mentioning "@JonHuntsman". Someone could have tweeted a link to the video and then someone else clicked the link on that page. Doing so would result in the single hit shown in the graphic.
If the video had been embedded in Huntsman's site, then there certainly would have been more than one hit coming from his site. Other possible ways the video could have gotten a hit from Huntsman's site would include the video being presented in "Related videos" after a campaign video plays, and then someone clicking on that in Youtube's video player. Someone who wanted to frame Huntsman could have even planned this beforehand: tweeting a link to the video, waiting for it to appear on Huntsman's page, and then clicking the link in order to generate a hit that would show in that graphic.
Note that I get hits from sites in similar ways to how the single hit from jon2012.com was assuredly generated. For instance, adbusters dot org has a Twitter widget showing tweets with the tag "#OWS", and I've gotten hits from that without adbusters itself ever linking to me. I've gotten similar hits from the Huffington Post and other sites' blocks that show related content on other sites. The strongest "proof" theendrun presents is that single hit from jon2012.com, and that's not proof at all.

Yet another worthless GOP debate will be held tonight, December 15, 2011:
NETWORK: Fox News
HOST: Bret Baier
MODERATORS: Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, and Chris Wallace
WHEN: 9pm Eastern
WHERE: Sioux City, Iowa
PARTICIPANTS: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman.
TRANSCRIPT: When available.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: As with all the rest, this debate will feature weak, superficial questions and few follow-ups. Any immigration ideas they present will be flawed just like at the debate five days ago. None of the moderators will ask as many trivial gotcha as others, but they won't "cross-examine" the candidates on the downsides of their policies either.
SUGGESTED READING: The links in the list of candidates above, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.12/16/11 UPDATE: In the debate, Jon Huntsman lied, misled, and promoted bad policies (link):

In a major departure from the GOP line, dark horse candidate Jon Huntsman said Americans should be alarmed by the reduction of legal immigrants coming to the U.S. – because of the ailing economy – and fewer entrepreneurs contributing to the economic recovery.
“This president has so screwed up this economy, nobody is coming anymore. There is nothing to come for,” Huntsman said. “Let's not lose sight of the fact that legal immigration is an engine of growth for this country. Half of the Fortune 500 countries in this country today were founded by immigrants.”
Huntsman also added that Latinos will vote for Republicans because of the party’s pro-growth policies.

1. According to the "Partnership for a New American Economy", "More than 40 percent of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children... there are 90 immigrant-founded Fortune 500 companies, accounting for 18 percent of the list." Obviously, 18% is not 50%. Even the 40%+ isn't 50%. And on top of that, PNAE cooked the books on those Fortune 500 immigration statistics. For instance, they list DuPont - whose founder came to the U.S. in 1799 - as an immigrant-founded company. Michael Bloomberg and his pals in the PNAE would probably try to list Hudson's Bay Company - founded in Canada in 1670 - as an immigrant-founded company if he thought he could get away with it.
2. What we should be alarmed by is that when the economy improves, illegal immigration will pick up and be allowed by Barack Obama as well as supposed opponents such as those like Huntsman.
3. While some Latinos will vote GOP due to "pro-growth policies", more might vote GOP if the GOP demagogued on social issues (such as cynical anti-gay marriage campaigns). However, much of the GOP outreach to Latinos supports far-left concepts and is to those who'd never vote for the GOP no matter what. Instead of reaching out to the segment of Latinos that support our laws, the GOP outreaches to those who oppose our immigration laws and to far-left racial power groups like the National Council of La Raza.12/17/11 UPDATE: Two days later, I still can't find a transcript. If anyone knows where one is, please leave a comment.

Yet another worthless GOP debate takes place tonight with what will be sold as the most important debate so far. That's because it will take place in Iowa a few weeks before the Iowa Caucus.
MODERATORS: George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer
WHEN: 9pm Eastern
WHERE: Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
PARTICIPANTS: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.
NON-PARTICIPANTS: Jon Huntsman didn't meet the minimum qualifications. Herman Cain recently "suspended" his campaign.
TRANSCRIPT: When available.
WHAT TO WATCH FOR: Stephanopoulos will, of course, attack the candidates in scurrilous ways. The candidates won't be able to do much about it and won't engage him in debate with the goal of showing him wrong. If the topic of immigration comes up it will be yet another worthless show. The candidates can't debate and aren't willing to show how others are wrong, and moreover there isn't that much difference between their (actual) immigration positions and those of Stephanopoulos or Sawyer. All the candidates will point out that we need to secure the border, but none will go much beyond that. Stephanopoulos or Sawyer will not, of course, challenge Gingrich on his absurd immigration ideas or challenge Rick Perry on helping illegal aliens deprive citizens of college. The the moderators are challenged, it will be a fake challenge.
SUGGESTED READING: The links in the list of candidates above, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. Note that Occupy Des Moines might be outside the event or might even attempt to cause a disruption during the broadcast.UPDATE: The brief immigration part of the transcript starts here:
abcnews.go.com/Politics/
full-transcript-abc-news-iowa-republican-debate/story?id=15134849&page=18
Some notes:
1. Surprisingly, Diane Sawyer somewhat makes a point made on the secure the border page. She also somewhat pressed Newt Gingrich on his "draft boards" plan.
2. Gingrich seems to be implying that he'd deport the vast majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. He seems to be claiming that his draft boards would only be for those who "have been here 25 years", which would be a very small number of people because most illegal aliens who would have been here that long would probably have already been legalized by the 1986 amnesty. Gingrich said "I think we should make deportation dramatically easier" without explaining exactly how he'd do that. Any attempt to increase deportations would be met with very stiff resistance from the far-left, the Democratic Party, businesses, religious leaders, and on and on. Even if Gingrich were sincere, he wouldn't get what he wants because opponents of deportation are stronger than those who support it. Many of those who support it (such as the tea parties) are easily distracted and aren't in any way capable of opposing even the weakest of the many organizations (example: ThinkProgress) who enable illegal immigration.
3. Romney presented his own fantastic plan: that all the illegal aliens in the U.S. would be required to "register the fact that they're here in the country" and then be "given some transition period of time to allow them to-- settle their affairs and then return home and get in the-- in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here." First, there's no such thing as the "back of the line"; see immigration line. More importantly, that would never happen - at least under the current conditions - for the same reasons outlined above.
4. Neither Romney nor Gingrich - even if they were sincere - have no plan to deal with the far-left and the Democrats who'd resist their deportation plans. Romney's and Gingrich's supporters who might be sincere have given little indication that they're willing and able to deal with the far-left and the Democrats. The Teapartiers and rightwing bloggers largely ignore an outrageously anti-American bill like the DREAM Act - a bill on which the Democrats are extraordinarily vulnerable - and we're supposed to believe that President Gingrich or President Romney would be able to engage in large-scale deportations? No, there are far deeper problems that need to be fixed first.
5. Diane Sawyer then described for Rick Perry a situation that isn't permitted under our laws: illegal aliens aren't allowed to serve in the U.S. military unless we've declared war, which we haven't for any of the several current conflicts. That doesn't mean that illegal aliens aren't in the military, just that they shouldn't be there.
6. Perry didn't answer Sawyer's question in any way. Instead, just as he's apparently been trained to do, he launched into a discussion of securing the border. Apparently Perry missed Sawyer's stipulation.
7. Perry then said we just need to enforce the laws that are on the books and named some specific things he might do. He might be able to do those specific things with one hand, but with the other he'd be standing on the border waving people over through some sort of guest workers program or similar. And, even if he were able to do those specific things, he didn't outline a plan to enforce immigration laws across the board. As with Romney and Gingrich, even if he were sincere he has no plan to actually do what he says: even if he tried to enforce the laws across the board, the far stronger illegal immigration supporters would (under the current situation) prevail.
The U.S. is in a world of hurt. Candidates express broad outlines of plans that stand little chance of actually happening and, instead of pressing them on their unworkable plans, the media simply moves on to the next question. Reducing illegal immigration and the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. shouldn't be that difficult, but it is. And, that's because of (to be frank) the far deeper problems that many illegal immigration opponents have.
Transcript follows.
-----------------------------------

DIANE SAWYER: And I'd like to turn now, if we can, to the issue of immigration. And so many people talk about it in their living room, talk about it around their dinner tables at night-- if I can. And can we just do one thing for the interest of time? Can we stipulate that every single person on this stage tonight has said the number one thing to do is secure the borders, secure the borders, secure the borders, secure the borders. You may have slightly different prescriptions to do it. But, we stipulate that, that that's what you all want to do first.
I'd like to turn, now, the question, the 11 million undocumented people in this country. And Speaker Gingrich, I'm gonna come back to you because you have talked about citizen review boards to review individual cases, that treated them in individual basis. You-- you've-- you mentioned the fact that someone who's been here 25 years, served the community, should get special consideration under this board. How many years is the threshold for your-- is it five years-- has served the community under the criteria that you've set out before, five years also a candidate?
NEWT GINGRICH: I think, first of all, that anybody you would apply to a-- the citizen review board idea came out of a selective service model. It was used as draft boards in World War II. We relied on the local citizens to render judgment about who oughta be deferred, who oughta be drafted. Did they have local knowledge? That's the starting point.
Second, I started wi-- with-- with cases that I think are very hard to-- to argue about. Someone who's been here 25 years, somebody who has been a good local citizen, may well belong to your church, has children and grandchildren in the United States, and I will just say flatly, I do not believe the people of the United States are gonna send the police in to rip that kinda person out and ship them outta this country, (COUGH) particularly because those are precisely the people that end up in churches as sanctuaries.
And I think we oughta be honest about that. I think most of the workers who are here who have no ties to us should go home immediately. I think we should make deportation dramatically easier. This is, I think frankly we oughta make English the official language of government. And we oughta have an effective guest worker program with very severe penalties for those employers who hire people illegally.
DIANE SAWYER: But, the Pew Center for Hispanic Center, as you know, has said that maybe 3.5 million people could come under the criteria that you laid out.
NEWT GINGRICH: I-- I don't think there's 3.5 million people who've been here 25 years.
DIANE SAWYER: But they're talking about people who have been here 15 years. 15 years.
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I wasn't. They were. You used a number that doesn't relate to my proposal.
DIANE SAWYER: But, under the criteria that you have set out, do you have a threshold on the number of people you would consider before the review board?
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, I-- that's why you have the citizen review panel. The per-- the person has to have been here 25 years, have genuine ties to the community, be a good citizen, and have an American family sponsor them. And they still don't get citizenship. This is not amnesty. They get residency. And they pay a penalty in order to get residency.
DIANE SAWYER: Okay, I'm gonna turn it to k-- to Governor Romney because we heard Speaker Gingrich say we're not gonna round people up and deport them. And I think at one point-- you said something similar in a meeting at Bloomberg that-- that they're not going to be tracking everybody down and moving them out. And yet, to our colleague David Muir-- wanna try to clarify something. You said, "You seem to indicate that people should go back home to their country." And in some cases it may mean as much as five years if they get at the back of the line or more. Are you saying-- how many people should be sent back home to their countries? Should they be tracked down to establish who they are, sent back home to their country?
MITT ROMNEY: I-- I believe that any time that we start talking about a-- a form of amnesty, whether it's technically amnesty or not, when we start talking about how people have been able to come here and stay illegally for some period of time, that they're gonna be able to stay here permanently and become a permanent resident of the United States with-- with rights to our education system, our health care system, and so forth, we will then create another magnet that draws people into our country illegally.
So, the right course for us is to, once again, talk about what you described. Secure the border. Once we do that, we can start talking about the 11 million or whatever number that may be that are in the country illegally. My own view is those 11-- 11 million people should register the fact that they're here in the country. They should be given some transition period of time to allow them to-- settle their affairs and then return home and get in the-- in line at the back of the line with everybody else that wants to come here.
Don't forget, when we talk about-- about-- the difficulty of people going home, there are millions of people who-- many of whom have relatives here in this country who are in line, who want to come here. I want to bring people into this country who have skill, experience, family here who want to draw them in. I do not want to do something. (NOISE) I do not want to do something which encourages another wave of illegal immigration. So, from my view-- viewpoint, the key-- the key measure is this: No favoritism for permanent residency or citizenship for those that have come here illegally.
DIANE SAWYER: So, you've said all 11 million. If I could Governor Perry-- there is a case or there are a number of these cases of-- of people who have signed up for the military, the U.S. military, who have been undocumented but nonetheless go and sign up. What should happen with them?
GOVERNOR RICK PERRY: Well, let me-- address the issue that you asked from the start, and obviously securing that border is the-- is the key. And any of these conversations that we're having now are nothing more than intellectual-- discussions until you secure that border.
But if this country would simply enforce the laws that are already on the book, you think about all of the laws that we have that are already out there, laws that clearly saw-- that-- that, "Here are punishments," and, "Here's what will happen." If this country would simply enforce the laws that we have on the book-- I will tell you one thing: As the president of the United States, you will not see me sending my Justice Department to sue states like Arizona that are havin' to sovereign rights, I think, put in jeopardy by our Justice Department.
You will not see a catch and release program like this administration has today th-- where people who are caught who are illegally in this country, and because they haven't been (RUSTLING) caught in a violent situation, they're released. Released into the general population. That's the problem that we've got in this country.
I would suggest to you we spend time with the laws that we've got on the book being enforced, we'll have a substantial smaller number of people of which we're gonna have to make decisions about at that particular point in time. And then we can have a legitimate conversation about immigration reform.

The long series of worthless GOP debates continues with yet another from CNN tonight in Washington DC. It will be moderated by Wolf Blitzer and is being held in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. The horse race starts at 8pm Eastern.
Like the one just 10 days ago, tonight's debate will focus on national security and foreign policy. If CNN were actually interested in hashing out the best policies, they'd have people whose policies are opposite those on stage quiz them. Instead - aside from Ron Paul - those on stage will fundamentally agree with both Heritage and AEI, and the supposed debate will be little more than an echo chamber. Expect Paul's concerns - some of which might be valid - to be marginalized by all others present.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Participants: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum.
Suggested reading: the links in the list of candidates above, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.UPDATE: A transcript of the immigration portion follows, and it underlines just how fake this and all the other debates are. The candidates just gave stock speeches, and CNN got their gotcha moment as Newt Gingrich said this (see more below):

And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.

The "create legality" part has already been shown wanting in the entries on the Newt Gingrich page. The rest of that statement could have been shown wanting if there had been anyone around who could engage Gingrich on this issue. What he's doing is promoting policies that will make things even worse and encourage more family separations by encouraging more people to come here illegally. He's complaining about a situation he'd make worse.
Rick Perry repeated his tires spiel about securing the border, "boots on the ground", all the things he's said many times before. He's also previously pledged to secure the border within a year.
Ron Paul would tie reducing illegal immigration to ending the welfare state, something that is never going to happen. Ron Paul's ideas about that are not based in reality.
Cain presented something that wouldn't "solve the whole problem" by a long shot. Simply securing the border wouldn't do anything about Fifth Columnists like Gil Cedillo or the far more powerful racial power group the National Council of La Raza and others of their ilk. The high immigration Cain supports would lead to networks that future illegal aliens would take advantage of and would form a power base for the Democrats and the far-left.
Then, Blitzer asked about skilled immigration. See the link for the aspects of that that you'll never hear on CNN. Santorum engaged in Ron Paul-style magical thinking, Reaganesquely saying that the financial activity created by the innovation of skilled immigrant would "trickle down to blue-collar workers" and giving a shout-out to dealing with "income mobility".
Then, Gingrich said his bit above, supported skilled immigration, and pointed out that he voted for the 1986 amnesty. However, what you won't hear from virtually anyone else is that he also promoted Helen Krieble's absurd Red Card immigration plan. See that link for a long discussion of just some of the very many things wrong with it. As with everything else that happens in debates, that illustrates exactly why we need policy debates with experts able to ask the candidates real questions. Wolf Blitzer doesn't know Helen Krieble from Alex Trebek, but someone like Mark Krikorian does and could walk Gingrich through all the problems with it.
Note that Gingrich said he wanted comprehensive immigration reform, which contradicts his earlier piecemeal approach. He also yet again came out in support of the anti-American DREAM Act (see the links).
Bachmann, like the others, supported skilled immigration.
The only one who at least talks slightly strong on this issue was Romney. I don't mean the fake strong like Cain, but actually ever so slightly strong and with ideas that might fly. Of course, Romney is just as fake as all the rest and would push amnesty - whether called that or Comprehensive Immigration Reform or Guest Workers or Red Cards or whatever - just as strongly as all the rest.
We need real debates, and we need real candidates who represent the opinions of the majority of Americans on this subject.
Transcript follows:
--------------

BLITZER: Welcome back to the historic Constitution Hall here in Washington, D.C. We're at the CNN Republican National Security Debate. Let's go right to the audience. We have a question. Please, give us your name and your organization.
TRULUCK: Thank you. My name is Phil Truluck. I'm executive vice president and chief operating officer of The Heritage Foundation. And I'd like to thank all the candidates for joining us tonight. I know some of you may want to be in other places, but we appreciate you being here and sharing your views with us.
Let's -- I'd like to turn it back a little bit, a little closer to home, and talk about what's going on on the borders, our southern border. As all of you know, the drug-related crimes and violence are getting heavier and heavier in that area. First, do you consider that to be a national interest threat? And, secondly, what could we be doing with the Mexican government to help stop these drug cartels?
BLITZER: Let's go to Governor Perry. You represent the state with the longest border with Mexico right now. What do you think you should do, if you were President of the United States, as far as using the United States military?
PERRY: Well, let me kind of broaden it out. I think it's time for a 21st century Monroe Doctrine. When you think about what we put in place in the -- in the 1820s, and then we used it again in the 1960s with the Soviet Union. We're seeing countries start to come in and infiltrate. We know that Hamas and Hezbollah are working in Mexico, as well as Iran, with their ploy to come into the United States.
We know that Hugo Chavez and the Iranian government has one of the largest -- I think their largest embassy in the world is in Venezuela. So the idea that we need to have border security with the United States and Mexico is paramount to the entire western hemisphere.
So putting that secure border in place with strategic fencing, with the boots on the ground, with the aviation assets, and then working with Mexico in particular, whether it's putting sanctions against the banks, whether it's working with them on security with Mexico, all of those together can make that country substantially more secure and our borders secure.
As the President of the United States, I will promise you one thing, that within 12 months of the inaugural, that border will be shut down, and it will be secure.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Congressman Paul, you're from Texas. Do you agree with your governor?
PAUL: Not entirely.
(LAUGHTER)
PAUL: No, the drug was mentioned. I think that's another war we ought to cancel, because it's...
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: ... to nobody's benefit. And that's where the violence is coming from. But, yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. What I'm, sort of, tired of is all the money spent and lives lost worrying about the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan and forgetting about our borders between the United States and Mexico. We should think more about, you know, what we do at home.
We need better immigration services, obviously. But, you know, if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable.
But giving -- mandating to the states and to Texas that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden. It's a great burden to California and all the border states.
So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them.
BLITZER: But I just want you to clarify. When you say cancel the war on drugs, does that mean legalize all these drugs? PAUL: I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure.
(APPLAUSE)
You can -- you can at least let sick people have marijuana because it's helpful, but compassionate conservatives say, well, we can't do this; we're going to put people who are sick and dying with cancer and they're being helped with marijuana, if they have multiple sclerosis -- the federal government's going in there and overriding state laws and putting people like that in prison.
Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol? Alcohol is a deadly drug. What about -- the real deadly drugs are the prescription drugs. They kill a lot more people than the illegal drugs.
So the drug war is out of control. I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend -- like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.
BLITZER: Herman Cain, let me let you...
(APPLAUSE)
... weigh in.
CAIN: Yes. Allow me to answer the gentleman's question. The answer is yes. An insecure border is a national security threat for the following reasons.
Number one, we know that terrorists have come into this country by way of Mexico. Secondly, 40 percent of the people in Mexico, according to a survey, already believe that their country is a failed state. Thirdly, the number of people killed in Mexico last year equals the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
So yes, so let's solve the whole problem. Number one, secure the border for real. Number two, enforce the laws that are already there. We don't need new laws. Number three, promote the current path to citizenship. Clean up the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. so people can come through the front door instead of sneaking in the side door. And, number four, to deal with the illegals that are already here, empower the states to do what the federal government is not capable of doing.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Let's stay on this subject. Go ahead, please.
QUESTION: I have a question about high-skilled immigration. We hear a lot about low-skilled immigration, so I want to ask you about high-skilled immigration.
What would you do to ensure that the United States is as welcoming as possible to the world's skilled immigrants and entrepreneurs?
BLITZER: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Well, as the son of a legal immigrant to this country, I strongly believe in legal immigration and believe we are that shining city on the hill, that our future -- if you look at all of the jobs that are being created in our economy today, a huge percentage of them come from the legal immigrants of this county -- country who have innovated, who created great products, who created great companies and employed lots of people.
That's one of the reasons that -- that I put together my economic plan, was to take all that great innovation that's coming as a result, in part, of legal immigration and make sure that those products that are being created are actually made here in America.
That's part of the problem that -- you know, Reaganomics was criticized as trickle-down. Problem is, we're not seeing that money trickle down to the blue-collar workers in America. And that's why I put forth a four-point economic plan to revitalize manufacturing that begins with zeroing out the corporate tax for manufacturers; also, regulatory reform, repatriation of profits, if invested in this country, to pay no taxes; and finally, energy policy that will explode the energy industry in this country.
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM, R-PA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We do those things, we'll not only have the innovation, which I support, coming from legal -- legal immigrants, but we'll have that money trickle down to blue-collar workers and we can see that income mobility that a lot of people are right in that is not happening in America.
WOLF BLITZER, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN LEAD POLITICAL ANCHOR: Speaker Gingrich, let me let you broaden out this conversation. Back in the '80s -- and you remember this well. I was covering you then. Ronald Reagan and you -- you voted for legislation that had a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, as you well remember. There were, what, maybe 12 million, 10 million -- 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States right now.
Some called it amnesty then; they still call it amnesty now. What would you do if you were President of the United States, with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time?
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH, R-GA., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: You know, about five blocks down the street, you'll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let's be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive.
I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it -- and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3 million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
We got neither. So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here. If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.
The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.
BLITZER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you agree with the speaker?
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN, R-MINN., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.
But those are two areas that I don't agree with. What I do think, though, is what Steve -- what Steve Jobs said to President Obama. He had said to President Obama that he had to move a great deal of his operation over to China because he couldn't find 30,000 engineers to be able to do the work that needed to be done.
That's what we want to do. We do want to have people. And I agree with the speaker, people like chemists and engineers, and people who are highly skilled.
We think about the United States and what's in the best interests of the United States. If we can utilize these workers, like Steve jobs wanted to, then we need to offer those visas. That will help the United States. But I don't agree that we should make 11 million workers who are here illegally legal.
BLITZER: Let me let the speaker respond to that.
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, two things, first of all, in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.
And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America. I specifically did not say we'd make the 11 million people legal.
I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you'll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they've been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.
BLITZER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you want to respond?
(APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: If I understood correctly, I think the speaker just said that that would make 11 people -- 11 million people who are here illegally now legal. That's really the issue that we're dealing with. And also, it would be the DREAM Act, the federal DREAM Act, which would offer taxpayer-subsidized benefits to illegal aliens. We need to move away from magnets (ph), not offer more.
BLITZER: Let's broaden it out.
Governor Romney, where do you stand? Are you with the speaker, that some of those illegal immigrants -- I think -- he didn't say all -- some of them, if they have roots, they belong to a church, for example, should be allowed to stay in this country?
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY, R-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally.
The right course for our immigration system is to say we welcome people who want to come here legally. We're going to have a system that makes that easier and more transparent. But to make sure we're able to bring in the best and brightest -- and, by the way, I agree with the speaker in terms of -- I'd staple a green card to the diploma of anybody who's got a degree of math, science, a Masters degree, Ph.D.
We want those brains in our country. But in order to bring people in legally we've got to stop illegal immigration. That means turning off the magnets of amnesty, in-state tuition for illegal aliens, employers that knowingly hire people that have come here illegally.
We welcome legal immigration. This is a party, this is a party that loves legal immigration. But we have to stop illegal immigration for all the reasons the questioner raised, which is, it is bringing in people who in some cases can be terrorists, in other cases they become burdens on our society.
And we have to finally have immigration laws that protect our border, secure the border, turn off the magnets, and make sure we have people come to this country legally to build our economy.
BLITZER: Just to precise, and I'll give Speaker Gingrich a chance to respond. Are you saying that what he's proposing, giving amnesty in effect, or allowing some of these illegal immigrants to stay, is a magnet that would entice others to come to this country illegally?
ROMNEY: There's no question. But to say that we're going to say to the people who have come here illegally that now you're all going to get to stay or some large number are going to get to stay and become permanent residents of the United States, that will only encourage more people to do the same thing.
People respond to incentives. And if you can become a permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, you'll do so. What I want to do is bring people into this country legally, particularly those that have education and skill that allows us to compete globally. (APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.
I do believe if you've been here recently and have no ties to the U.S., we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan.
I don't see how the -- the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I'm prepared to take the heat for saying, let's be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.
BLITZER: Governor Perry, are you with the speaker or with the governor, Governor Romney?
(APPLAUSE)
GOV. RICK PERRY, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Here we go again, Mitt. You and I standing by each other again and you used the words about the magnets. And that's one of the things that we obviously have to do is to stop those magnets for individuals to come in here.
But the real issue is securing that border. And this conversation is not ever going to end until we get the border secure. But I do think that there is a way. That after we secure that border that you can have a process in place for individual who are law- abiding citizens who have done only one thing, as Newt says, 25 years ago or whatever that period of time was, that you can put something in place that basically continues to keep those families together.
But the idea that we're having this long and lengthy conversation here, until we have a secure border is just an intellectual exercise. You've got to secure the border first. And I know how to do that. I've been dealing with it for 10 years.
And we have to put the boots on the ground and the aviation assets in place, and secure that border once and for all, and be committed to it. BLITZER: Let me let Governor Romney respond.
ROMNEY: Yes, I don't disagree with what Governor Perry indicated. Certainly we have to secure the border. And we talk about people who have been here 25 years, that is the extreme exception...
BLITZER: You would let them stay.
ROMNEY: ... not the rule.
BLITZER: You would let them stay?
ROMNEY: I'm not going to start drawing lines here about who gets to stay and who get to go. The principle is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people who come here illegally get to stay for the rest of their life in this country legally.
The answer is we're going to have a system that gives people who come legally a card that identifies them as coming here legally. Employers are going to be expected to inspect that card, see if they're here legally. On that basis we're going to be able to bring you to this country.
The number of people that we need to power our industries, whether that's agriculture or high tech, we welcome people in here with visa programs. We have a whole series of legal programs. But the idea of focusing a Republican debate on amnesty and who we're going to give it to, is a huge mistake.
Secure our border, protect legal immigration, and return to a system that follows the law.

We just had yet another worthless GOP debate three days ago, but tonight there's yet another one. This time CBS News will be the one asking the weak questions at a debate at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina. It's set to kick off at 8pm Eastern.
This debate will focus on national security and foreign policy, and one or more questions will be asked by Sens. Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham. If CBS were actually interested in hashing out the best policies, they'd have people whose policies are opposite those on stage quiz them. Having people on the same basic side ask questions is more akin to a Soviet-style debate.
Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Participants: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum.
Suggested reading: the links in the list of candidates above, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.UPDATE: CBS has a transcript here. They don't appear to have put it all on one page, you'll have to scroll through 17 pages.UPDATE 2: Ron Paul's campaign manager John Tate says:

"90 seconds. That’s how much of the first hour of tonight’s GOP debate was given to Ron Paul. 90 measly seconds out of 3,600 seconds. The remaining 3,510 seconds were spent with the other major candidates:
*Declaring their desire to start wars in Iran, Pakistan, and Syria;
*Rehashing their support for torture;
*Agreeing that President Obama has the right to unilaterally assassinate an American citizen without a court conviction;
*Explaining their plans to continue nation-building, policing, and occupying countries across the globe...."

Tonight CNBC is conducting yet another in a very long line of worthless debates, this time a GOP debate in Detroit in conjunction with Oakland University. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Participants: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Santorum.
Suggested reading: the links in the list of candidates above, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. All the debates so far simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.UPDATE: A transcript is here. There was only one (1) mention of immigration in the entire debate. That's despite the fact that immigration is a very vital and fundamental issue that directly impacts government spending, jobs, and other economic issues. And, that single mention of immigration was in an unprompted comment from Bachmann:

But beyond that, we have to legalize American energy. And here is something else that we have to do that will help the economy. We have to build the fence on America's southern border and get a grip on dealing with our immigration problem.

Tonight CNN will be conducting yet another of their worthless debates, this time a GOP debate in Las Vegas in conjunction with the Western Republican Leadership Conference (WRLC). Show time is at 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Participants: Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman won't be attending out of protest against Nevada moving up the date of their caucus.
This debate will be even more bogus than others, because the host will be Anderson Cooper. The debate will feature regular citizens asking questions. Some of those selected might not just be uninvolved voters, and all the questions they ask will be very easily answered.
Suggested reading: the links in the list of candidates above, CNN, debates, and most importantly of all the alternative to bogus political debates. That plan would ensure that the presidential candidates promote vetted policies with only known side-effects. Debate conducted by CNN and other organizations simply allow candidates to give their stock speeches without being challenged on the flaws in their plans.
UPDATE: I've included a rush transcript below. There were three weak questions about immigration, and one of those was a race-baiting question that wasn't (of course) adequately answered:
1. "As president, will you order completion of the physical border fence along the entire border between the U.S. and Mexico?"
2. (From an audience member) "We have 50 million Latinos and not all of us are illegal. What is the message from you guys to our Latino community? "
3. "[T]he 14th Amendment allows that anybody born in the United States is an American citizen. Should that change?"
The first and last are questions that the candidates have already answered or at least discussed. Now, either CNN can't search the archives of what they've covered, or they're just engaging in a setup that gives the candidates a chance to replay their stock speeches. The second question is yet another example of CNN playing the race card. Gingrich, Paul, and Cain were at least partly right in their responses to that question, although their responses don't match their actions in at least Gingrich's case (see his name's link above). However, they didn't go far enough and go after those who support corporate pluralism and multiculturalism.
The transcript:

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR AND DEBATE MODERATOR: I'm Anderson Cooper in Las Vegas.
Tonight, the presidential candidates come here to win the West.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NARRATOR: The west. From the mountain majesty of the Rockies, to the desert sands of the Mojave, the American frontier is a historic land of opportunity for Republicans.
GOV. RICK PERRY (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Believe in America.
NARRATOR: Tonight, the fight for the GOP presidential nomination comes here, to a region where Barack Obama made inroads four years ago, to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election, to a city where dreams are made and crushed.
Stand by for a Las Vegas event, the Republican presidential contenders on stage and in depth after a dramatic reshuffling of the pack.
Herman Cain, now among the leaders surging in recent weeks.
PERRY: We put more boots on the ground.
NARRATOR: Rick Perry, trying to get back on track after a meteoric rise.
FORMER GOV. MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thanks for being here today.
NARRATOR: And Mitt Romney, steady, holding his place in the top tier.
They could have the most to win or lose. But Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul could be wildcards. And Rick Santorum, eager to beat the odds.
The candidates facing tough questions about jobs and the economy, the immigration wars, and other issues that matter to westerners and voters across the nation.
Now, with nothing less than America's future at stake, the presidential campaign goes West.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And welcome to the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian in Las Vegas, our host of the Western Republican Presidential Debate.
Tonight, seven contenders will be on this stage to convince you he or she should be the Republican nominee for the president of the United States.
I'm Anderson Cooper.
Welcome to our viewers in the U.S. and around the world.
Tonight's debate is airing on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol, and the American Forces Network.
We want to thank our cosponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, representing 16 western states and territories. Western voters will play an active role in tonight's debate. Voters here in our audience will have a chance to put questions directly to the candidates on this stage.
Let's meet the 2012 Republican presidential contenders.
Joining us on stage, Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Governor Rick Perry.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: The former president and CEO of Godfather's Pizza, Herman Cain.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: And the former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Ladies and Gentlemen, the Republican candidates for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Well, the crowd is on its feet. Everyone, please remain standing. It's time now for our national anthem performed tonight by Tony award-winner Anthony Crivello, starring as the Phantom in "Phantom Las Vegas," the Las Vegas spectacular. Please stand for the national anthem.
(APPLAUSE)
CRIVELLO: (SINGING NATIONAL ANTHEM)
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: I want to ask the candidates to please take your podiums. While the candidates are taking their podiums, I just want to tell you a little bit more about how tonight's debate is going to work. I'll be the moderator. I'll ask questions on a wide range of issues. And I'll work to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of questions.
Also, Western voters right here in the hall will be asking questions, as well, and viewers watching at home can participate, also. We're accepting questions for the candidates on Twitter. If you send a question for the candidates on Twitter, make sure to include the hash tag #cnndebate, on Facebook at facebook.com/cnnpolitics, and on cnnpolitics.com.
Now, each candidate will have about one minute to answer the questions and 30 seconds for follow-ups and rebuttals. I'll make sure candidates get time to respond if they're singled out for criticism. There are no buzzers. There's no bells. I'll just politely inform the candidates when they need to wrap things up.
We want everyone watching to emerge from this debate more informed about the candidates, more able to judge who should be the next president of the United States.
Now that everyone is in place, it's time for the candidates to introduce themselves to our audience. All the candidates are going to keep it short. Here's an example. I'm Anderson Cooper. I'm usually anchoring "AC 360" on CNN, but I'm honored to be here in Las Vegas at the Western Republican Presidential Debate. That will be my introduction.
(APPLAUSE)
So, Senator Santorum, you're first. Let's start with you.
FORMER SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, Anderson. I'm Rick Santorum. My wife, Karen, and I are the parents of seven children. And my little girl, Isabella, 3 years old, had some surgery today. She's doing fine. But I just wanted to send to her a little "I love you" and I will take the red eye home to be with you tomorrow and make sure that you're feeling fine.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. RON PAUL (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. I'm the champion of liberty. I am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in -- in a sincere method. And also, I present the case for a free society as being the best defense for peace and prosperity.
(APPLAUSE)
HERMAN CAIN, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am businessman Herman Cain. I've been married to my wife, Gloria, for 43 years. And I'm a 42-year businessman, which means I solve problems for a living.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: I'm Mitt Romney. I was a businessman for 25 years. Then I had the fun of getting the chance to help run the Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City next door. And then I had the fun also of being governor of Massachusetts. I also solve problems, sometimes for a living, sometimes for other people to make things better. And I hope to be your president. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
PERRY: Good evening. I'm Texas Governor Rick Perry, a proven job-creator and a man who is about economic growth, an authentic conservative, not a conservative of convenience.
(APPLAUSE)
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Newt Gingrich. And unlike President Obama, I'm glad to be in Las Vegas. I think it's a great place to have a convention.
(APPLAUSE)
And -- and when I am president, we're going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all Americans can get off food stamps and onto paychecks.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi, my name is Michele Bachmann. I am thrilled to be able to be with you tonight in Las Vegas. And this is one night when I hope what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Let's -- time to begin. We'll begin with actually a question in the hall.
QUESTION: This is for all candidates. What's your position on replacing the federal income tax with a federal sales tax?
COOPER: I'll direct that to Congresswoman Bachmann. You've been very critical of Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which calls for a 9 percent sales tax, a 9 percent income tax, and 9 percent corporate tax. In fact, you've said it would destroy the economy. Why?
BACHMANN: Well, I am a former federal tax litigation attorney. And also, my husband and I are job-creators.
One thing I know about Congress, being a member of Congress for five years, is that any time you give the Congress a brand-new tax, it doesn't go away. When we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980, the top rate was 70 percent. If we give Congress a 9 percent sales tax, how long will it take a liberal president and a liberal Congress to run that up to maybe 90 percent? Who knows?
What I do know is that we also have to be concerned about the hidden tax of the value-added tax, because at every step and stage of production, you'd be taxing that item 9 percent on the profit. That's the worry.
In my plan -- again, that's a tax plan, it's not a jobs plan -- my plan for economic recovery is real jobs right now. I have a tax plan. I have a jobs plan. I have an energy plan and a plan to really turn this country around and create millions of high-paying jobs.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, a lot of prominent conservatives now are coming forward saying that your 9-9-9 plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class voters, on lower-income voters.
CAIN: The thing that I would encourage people to do before they engage in this knee-jerk reaction is read our analysis. It is available at hermancain.com. It was performed by Fiscal Associates. And all of the claims that are made against it, it is a jobs plan, it is revenue-neutral, it does not raise taxes on those that are making the least. All of those are simply not true.
The reason that my plan -- the reason that our plan is being attacked so much is because lobbyists, accountants, politicians, they don't want to throw out the current tax code and put in something that's simple and fair. They want to continue to be able to manipulate the American people with a 10-million-word mess.
Let's throw out the 10-million-word mess and put in our plan, which will liberate the American workers and liberate American businesses.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, will his plan raise taxes?
SANTORUM: Herman's well-meaning, and I love his boldness, and it's great. But the fact of the matter is, I mean, reports are now out that 84 percent of Americans would pay more taxes under his plan. That's the analysis. And it makes sense, because when -- when you don't provide a standard deduction, when you don't provide anything for low-income individuals, and you have a sales tax and an income tax and, as Michele said, a value-added tax, which is really what his corporate tax is, we're talking about major increases in taxes on people.
He also doesn't have anything that takes care of the families. I mean, you have -- you have a situation where, under Herman's plan, a single person pays as much in taxes as a -- as a man and a woman raising three children. Ever since we've had the income tax in America, we've always taken advantage of the fact that we want to encourage people to -- to have children and not have to pay more already to raise children, but also pay that additional taxes -- we gave some breaks for families. He doesn't do that in this bill.
And we're going to -- we've seen that happen in Europe. And what happened? Boom, birth rates went into -- into the basement. It's a bad tax for -- again, it's bold. I give him credit for -- for starting a debate, but it's not good for families, and it's not good for low-income...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I'm going to give you 30 seconds to respond. That 84 percent figure comes from the Tax Policy Center.
CAIN: That simply is not true. I invite people to look at our analysis, which we make available.
Secondly, the -- the point that he makes about is a value-added tax -- I'm sorry, Representative Bachmann -- it's not a value-added tax. It's a single tax.
And I invite every American to do their own math, because most of these are knee-jerk reactions. And we do provide a provision, if you read the analysis, something we call opportunity zones that will, in fact, address the issue of those making the least.
COOPER: I want to bring in Congresswoman Bachmann since she was referenced by you.
BACHMANN: But Anderson, how do you not have a value-added tax? Because at every level of production you have a profit, and that profit gets taxed, because you produce one portion at one level, and then you take it to the next supplier or vendor at the next level, and you have an exchange. That is a taxable event.
And ultimately, that becomes a value-added tax. It's a hidden tax. And any time the federal government needs revenue, they dial up the rate and the American people think that it's -- that it is the vendor that creates the tax, but it's the government that creates the tax.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, in your state, you have a 6.25 percent sales tax. Would taxpayers pay more under the 9-9-9 plan?
PERRY: No.
Herman, I love you, brother, but let me tell you something, you don't need to have a big analysis to figure this thing out. Go to New Hampshire, where they don't have a sales tax, and you're fixing to give them one.
They're not interested in 9-9-9. What they're interested in is flatter and fairer. At the end of the week, I'm going to be laying out a plan that clearly -- I'll bump plans with you, brother, and we'll see who has the best idea about how you get this country working again.
And one of the ways, right here in Nevada you've got 8-plus percent. You want nine cents on top of that, and nine cents on a new home -- or 9 percent on a new home, 9 percent on your Social Security, 9 percent more?
I don't think so, Herman. It's not going to fly.
COOPER: Mr. Cain, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it's not correct to mix apples and oranges.
Secondly, it is not a value-added tax. If you take most of the products -- take a loaf of bread. It does have five taxes in it right now. What the 9 percent does is that we take out those five invisible taxes and replace it with one visible 9 percent.
So you're absolutely wrong. It's not a value-added tax.
Now one other quick thing.
COOPER: Your time's up, I'm sorry.
CAIN: This whole thing about --
COOPER: You'll have another 30 seconds. Trust me, they're going to go --
CAIN: Tonight?
COOPER: Yes, I guarantee it. In about a minute.
Congressman Paul, you called his plan dangerous today.
PAUL: Oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it's regressive. A lot of people aren't paying any taxes, and I like that. I don't think that we should even things up by raising taxes.
So it is a regressive tax. So it's very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues.
But the gentlemen asked the question -- he didn't even ask what we're talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That's what we should replace it with.
(APPLAUSE)
PAUL: But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it's a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money.
And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax.
So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Mr. Cain, in 30 seconds?
CAIN: Once again, unfortunately, none of my distinguished colleagues who have attacked me up here tonight understand the plan. They're wrong about it being a value-added tax.
We simply remove the hidden taxes that are in goods and services with our plan and replace it with a single rate 9 percent. I invite every family to do your own calculations with that arithmetic.
COOPER: Governor Romney, you have your only 59-point plan. In the last debate, Mr. Cain suggested it was too complicated. Is simpler better?
ROMNEY: Oftentimes simpler is better. And I know we're not supposed the ask each other questions, but if you permit.
Herman, are you saying that the state sales tax will also go away?
CAIN: No, that's an apple.
ROMNEY: OK.
CAIN: We're replacing a bunch of oranges.
ROMNEY: OK.
So, then Governor Perry was right that --
CAIN: No, he wasn't. He was mixing apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Well, but will the people in Nevada not have to pay Nevada sales tax and in addition pay the 9 percent tax? CAIN: Governor Romney, you're doing the same thing that they're doing. You're mixing apples and oranges. You're going to pay --
ROMNEY: I'm --
CAIN: No, no, no, no. You're going to pay the state sales tax, no matter what.
ROMNEY: Right.
CAIN: Whether you throw out the existing code and you put in our plan, you're still going to pay that. That's apples and oranges.
ROMNEY: Fine. And I'm going to be getting a bushel basket that has apples and oranges in it because I've got to pay both taxes, and the people in Nevada don't want to pay both taxes.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Now let me make this comment. Let's just step back here. We've got a lot of people in America that are out of work. We've got a lot of people in this state, 13.4 percent of the people in this state out of work. We've got home prices going down. We've got to talk about how to get America growing again, how to start adding jobs, raising incomes, and tax is part of it.
I want to reduce taxes on our employers to make it easier to invest in America. I want to reduce taxes on middle income families. I like your chutzpah on this, Herman, but I have to tell you, the analysis I did, person by person, return by return, is that middle income people see higher taxes under your plan.
If it's lower for the middle class, that's great. But that's not what I saw. I have to tell you, I want to get our burden down on our employers, on our people. I want to make sure our regulations work to encourage the private sector as opposed to putting a damper on it.
I want to get trade, opening up new markets for America. I want to also find a way to get our energy resources -- and they're all over the world, are all over this country, used for us. This is time to get America growing again. And that's what this campaign ought to be about.
COOPER: Thank you, Governor.
Mr. Speaker...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you have said in recent days that Mr. Cain's 999 plan would be a harder sell than he lets on. How so?
GINGRICH: Well, you just watched it.
(LAUGHTER) GINGRICH: I mean, look, there are -- first of all, I think that Herman Cain deserves a lot of credit. He has had the courage to go out and take a specific very big idea at the right level.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: And he has us at least talking about something that matters as opposed to the junk that all too often is masquerading as politics in this country. So I think that's important.
There are two parts to this. The first is, if you take his plan, and I think it's in the interest of the whole country to have serious people take his plan and go through it step by step. There are much more complexities than Herman lets on. OK. I mean, 999, when you get into details like you pay it on a new product, you don't pay it on an old product, et cetera, there's a lot more detail here than he lets on.
Second, I favor very narrow, focused tax cuts such as zero capital gains, 100 percent expensing, because I think, as Governor Romney said, jobs are the number one challenge of the next two or three years. Get something you can do very fast. Change on this scale takes years to think through if you're going to do it right.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, you said in the last debate that everyone should pay something. Does that mean that you would raise taxes on the 47 percent of Americans who currently don't pay taxes?
BACHMANN: I believe absolutely every American benefits by this magnificent country. Absolutely every American should pay something, even if it's a dollar.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: Everyone needs to pay something in this country. That's why with my tax plan, I take a page out of not theory but what's provable and what works. What is provable and what works was the economic miracle that was wrought by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. That's the plan that I look at.
I also want to completely abolish the tax code. I want to flatten the tax for all of Americans, simplify that tax for all of Americans. And that creates job growth, which is exactly what we need to have.
Because to be able to fuel the fire for this economy, again, it is the tax code, but it doesn't end with the tax code. It's the regulatory burden that costs us $1.8 trillion every year, but it's more than that cost. It's jobs that are lost.
So we need to repeal "Obama-care," repeal the jobs and housing destruction act known as Dodd-Frank. President Obama's plan has been a plan for destruction of this economy and failure.
COOPER: Thank you.
BACHMANN: I plan to change that with real jobs right now at michelebachmann.com.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We've been talking about Herman Cain's plan. Let's talk about Governor Romney's plan.
Governor Perry, you have said that Governor Romney was an abject failure at creating jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts. If you've read his 59-point plan, has it changed your mind?
PERRY: Well, here's the nine that we need to get focused on. And it's not 999, it's not 59. It's that 9 percent unemployment in this country. And that's where we've got to get focused in America, is how to create an environment where the men and women get back to work.
It's the reason I laid out a plan, Newt, this last week to get this energy that's under our feet. We've got 300 years of resources right under our feet in this country. Yet we've got an administration that is blockading our ability to bring that to the surface, whether it's our petroleum, our natural gas, or our coal. And 1.2 million jobs could be put to work.
Americans who are sitting out there listening to this conversation tonight, somebody wants someone on this stage to say: Listen, we got an idea here how to get you to work and take care of your family and have the dignity of a job. And that's exactly what I did with my plan, laid it out where Americans understand we don't have to wait on OPEC anymore. We don't have to let them hold us hostage. America's got the energy. Let's have American energy independence.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, does Governor Perry have the answer?
ROMNEY: Well, he's absolutely right about -- about getting energy independence and taking advantage of our natural resources here. We're an energy-rich nation that's acting like an energy-poor nation. And that's something I've been talking about for some time, as the governor has. He's absolutely right.
But there are also a lot of good jobs we need in manufacturing, and high-tech jobs, and good service jobs, technology of all kinds. America produces an economy that's very, very broad. And that's why our policy to get America the most attractive place in the world for investment and -- and job growth encompasses more than just energy. It includes that, but also tax policy, regulatory policy, trade policy, education, training and balancing the federal budget, and that starts with repealing Obamacare, which is a huge burden on this economy.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum, does Mitt Romney have the answers for jobs? SANTORUM: I agree with -- with all of what Governor Romney and both -- and Governor Perry said. I would add the fact that -- that I've put forward the plan that's going to allow for income mobility. That's a new term, but I've been using it for a long time, which is people at the bottom part of the income scale being able to rise in society.
Believe it or not, studies have been done that show that in Western Europe, people at the lower parts of the income scale actually have a better mobility going up the ladder now than in America. And I believe that's because we've lost our manufacturing base. No more stamp "Made in America" is really hurting people in the middle.
And that's why I focus all of the real big changes in the tax code at manufacturing. I cut the corporate rate for manufacturing to zero, repeal all regulations affecting manufacturers that cost over $100 million and replace them with something that's friendlier, they can work with. We repatriate $1.2 trillion that manufacturers made overseas and allow them to bring it back here, if they invest in plants and equipment. They can do it without having to pay any -- any excise tax.
The final point I would make to Governor Romney, you just don't have credibility, Mitt, when it comes to repealing Obamacare. You are -- you are -- your plan was the basis for Obamacare. Your consultants helped Obama craft Obamacare. And to say that you're going to repeal it, you just -- you have no track record on that that -- that we can trust you that you're going to do that.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: You don't.
ROMNEY: You know, this I think is either our eighth or ninth debate. And each chance I've -- I've had to talk about Obamacare, I've made it very clear, and also in my book. And at the time, by the way, I crafted the plan, in the last campaign, I was asked, is this something that you would have the whole nation do? And I said, no, this is something that was crafted for Massachusetts. It would be wrong to adopt this as a nation.
SANTORUM: That's not what you said.
ROMNEY: You're -- you're shaking -- you're shaking your head.
SANTORUM: Governor, no, that's not what you said.
ROMNEY: That happens -- to happens to be...
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: It was in your book that it should be for everybody.
ROMNEY: Guys... PERRY: You took it out of your book.
SANTORUM: You took it out of your book.
ROMNEY: Hey, his turn. His turn, OK, and mine.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I'll tell you what? Why don't you let me speak?
(CROSSTALK)
SANTORUM: You're allowed -- you're allowed to change -- you're allowed to change...
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You can't change the facts.
ROMNEY: Rick, you had your chance. Let me speak.
SANTORUM: You're out of time. You're out of time.
COOPER: He ate into your time.
(BOOING)
Rick...
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: I haven't had a chance to respond yet, because you were interrupting the entire time I was trying to speak.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: Let me make it very clear.
COOPER: I'll give another 20 seconds.
ROMNEY: And -- look -- look, we'll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I'd impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not.
It was something crafted for a state. And I've said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It's unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I'm president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs.
What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem. Herman always says you've got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance without controlling costs. You've blown a hole in the budget up there. And you authored in Obamacare, which is going to blow a hole in the budget of this country.
COOPER: Governor Romney, I'm going to give you 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: I'm -- I'm sorry, Rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan, but I'll tell you, the people in Massachusetts like it by about a 3-1 margin.
And we dealt with a challenge that we had, a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way. And we said, you know what? If people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should.
Now, I can tell you this, it's absolutely right that there's a lot that needs to be done. And I didn't get the job done in Massachusetts in getting the health care costs down in this country. It's something I think we have got to do at the national level. I intend to do that.
But one thing is for sure. What Obama has done is imposed on the nation a plan that will not work, that must be repealed. And when it comes to knowledge about health care and how to get our health care system working, I may not be a doctor like this one right over here, but I sure understand how to bring the cost of health care down and how to also make sure that we have a system that works for the American people.
SANTORUM: It didn't do it. It didn't do it.
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you've also been very critical of Mitt Romney's plan not only on Obamacare, but his plan to lower the capital gains tax only on those earning under $200,000.
GINGRICH: I want to say on health for a minute -- OK, let's just focus. "The Boston Herald" today reported that the state of Massachusetts is fining a local small business $3,000 because their $750-a-month insurance plan is inadequate, according to the bureaucrats in Boston.
Now, there's a fundamental difference between trying to solve the problems of this country from the top down and trying to create environments in which doctors and patients and families solve the problem from the bottom up.
And candidly, Mitt, your plan ultimately, philosophically, it's not Obamacare, and that's not a fair charge. But your plan essentially is one more big government, bureaucratic, high-cost system, which candidly could not have been done by any other state because no other state had a Medicare program as lavish as yours, and no other state got as much money from the federal government under the Bush administration for this experiment. So there's a lot as big government behind Romneycare. Not as much as Obamacare, but a heck of a lot more than your campaign is admitting.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.
GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
GINGRICH: Wait a second. What you just said is not true. You did not get that from me. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.
ROMNEY: And you never supported them?
GINGRICH: I agree with them, but I'm just saying, what you said to this audience just now plain wasn't true.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: OK. Let me ask, have you supported in the past an individual mandate?
GINGRICH: I absolutely did with the Heritage Foundation against Hillarycare.
ROMNEY: You did support an individual mandate?
ROMNEY: Oh, OK. That's what I'm saying. We got the idea from you and the Heritage Foundation.
GINGRICH: OK. A little broader.
ROMNEY: OK.
BACHMANN: Anderson?
COOPER: He still has time. Let him finish.
ROMNEY: I get a little time here.
Number two, we don't have a government insurance plan. What we do is rely on private insurers, and people -- 93 percent of our people who are already insured, nothing changed. For the people who didn't have insurance, they get private insurance, not government insurance.
And the best way to make markets work is for people to be able to buy their own products from private enterprises. What we did was right for our state, according to the people in our state. And the great thing about a state solution to a state issue is, if people don't like it, they could change it.
Now, there are a lot of things.
BACHMANN: Anderson?
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann.
BACHMANN: Anderson, I think it has to be stated that Obamacare is so flat-out unpopular, that even the Obama administration chose to reject part of Obamacare last Friday, when they tried to throw out the CLASS Act, which is the long-term care function.
Secretary Sebelius, who is the head of Health and Human Services, reported that the government can't even afford that part and has to throw it out. And now the administration is arguing with itself.
When even the Obama administration wants to repeal this bill, I think we're going to win this thing. We're going to repeal it! And I will!
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. We will continue this discussion on the other side.
We have a long way to go. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back to the continuing debate. We got a Twitter question. We ended talking about medicine, Obamacare. We actually have a Twitter question about it. It was a question left at CNN debate.
If Obama's health plan is bad for the U.S., what is the alternative, and how will you implement it?
Congressman Paul, is there any aspect of Obamacare that you would like to keep, whether it's keeping kids to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 or no pre-existing conditions?
PAUL: Really not, because he's just adding on more government. There's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. Our problem is we have too much. We've had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid.
And what we need -- I mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare, because it's a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we'd all agree on this.
But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine. And... (APPLAUSE)
And the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship. There is inflation worked into it. When a government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine.
But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. As soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, these insurance companies line up. And even with Obamacare, the industries, the corporations get behind it and affect the outcome, and already insurance premiums are going up.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Herman Cain, same question. Is there any aspect of so- called Obamacare that -- that you would keep?
CAIN: No. I think we all agree that Obamacare must be repealed because it is a disaster. And the more we learn about it and the more time goes along, the more we see. We're all in agreement with that.
But here's where I would start in answering that question. It's called H.R. 3400. This was introduced back in 2009, but you didn't hear a lot of talk about it. Instead of government being imposed on -- on our system, it imposes -- it basically passes market-centered, market-driven, patient-centered sort of reforms to allow association health plans, to allow loser pay laws, to allow insurance products to be sold across state lines, and a whole list of other things. So that's a great place to start.
It allows the patient and the doctors to make the decisions, not a bureaucrat. I'd start with HR-3400.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, in the last debate, Governor Romney pointed out that Texas has one of the highest rates of uninsured children in the country, over one million kids. You did not get an opportunity to respond to that. What do you say? How do you explain that?
PERRY: Well, we've got one of the finest health care systems in the world in Texas. As a matter of fact, the Houston, Texas, Medical Center, there's more doctors and nurses that go to work there every morning than any other place in America. But the idea that you can't have access to health care, some of the finest health care in the world -- but we have a 1,200-mile border with Mexico, and the fact is we have a huge number of illegals that are coming into this country.
And they're coming into this country because the federal government has failed to secure that border. But they're coming here because there is a magnet. And the magnet is called jobs. And those people that hire illegals ought to be penalized.
And Mitt, you lose all of your standing, from my perspective, because you hired illegals in your home and you knew about it for a year. And the idea that you stand here before us and talk about that you're strong on immigration is on its face the height of hypocrisy.
(LAUGHTER)
COOPER: Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Rick, I don't think I've ever hired an illegal in my life. And so I'm afraid -- I'm looking forward to finding your facts on that, because that just doesn't --
PERRY: Well, I'll tell you what the facts are.
ROMNEY: Rick, again -- Rick, I'm speaking.
PERRY: You had the -- your newspaper -- the newspaper --
ROMNEY: I'm speaking. I'm speaking. I'm speaking.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: You get 30 seconds. This is the way the rules work here, is that I get 60 seconds and then you get 30 second to respond. Right?
Anderson?
PERRY: And they want to hear you say that you knew you had illegals working at your --
ROMNEY: Would you please wait? Are you just going to keep talking?
PERRY: Yes, sir.
ROMNEY: Would you let me finish with what I have to say?
(BOOING)
ROMNEY: Look, Rick --
COOPER: I thought Republicans follow the rules.
ROMNEY: This has been a tough couple of debates for Rick, and I understand that. And so you're going to get testy.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: But let's let -- I'll tell you what, let me take my time, and then you can take your time. All right?
PERRY: Great. Have at it.
ROMNEY: All right.
My time is this, which is I have in my state -- when I was governor, I took the action of empowering our state police to enforce immigration laws. When you were governor, you said, I don't want to build a fence. You put in place a magnet.
You talked about magnets. You put in place a magnet to draw illegals into the state, which was giving $100,000 of tuition credit to illegals that come into this country, and then you have states -- the big states of illegal immigrants are California and Florida. Over the last 10 years, they've had no increase in illegal immigration.
Texas has had 60 percent increase in illegal immigrants in Texas. If there's someone who has a record as governor with regards to illegal immigration that doesn't stand up to muster, it's you, not me.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds.
PERRY: You stood here in front of the American people and did not tell the truth that you had illegals working on your property. And the newspaper came to you and brought it to your attention, and you still, a year later, had those individuals working for you.
The idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having an immigration issue is beyond me. I've got a strong policy. I've always been against amnesty. You, on the other hand, were for amnesty.
COOPER: I've got 30 seconds, then we've got move on to another immigration question.
ROMNEY: OK.
You wrote an op-ed in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty. That's number one.
Number two, we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants that were working there. And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go. And we went to them and said --
PERRY: A year later?
ROMNEY: You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. And I suggest that if you want to become president of the United States, you have got to let both people speak. So first, let me speak.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals. It turns out that once question, they hired someone who had falsified their documents, had documents, and therefore we fired them. And let me tell you, it is hard in this country as an individual homeowner to know if people who are contractors working at your home, if they have hired people that are illegal. If I'm president, we'll put in an E-Verify system, which you have opposed --
COOPER: Out of time.
ROMNEY: -- to make sure that we can find out who's here illegally and not, and crack down on people who come here illegally.
COOPER: All right. We're going to stay on the topic of immigration.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We're going to stay on the topic of immigration. Everyone is going to get a chance to weigh in.
This is a question that was left at CNNPolitics.com. "As president, will you order completion of the physical border fence along the entire border between the U.S. and Mexico?" That's from Marilyn L.
Herman Cain, let me start with you. Obviously, over the weekend, you got a lot of headlines by saying you would have an electrified fence. You then later said it was -- you then later said it was a joke. And then last night, you said, "It might be electrified. I'm not walking away from that. I just don't want to offend anyone."
(LAUGHTER)
So...
(APPLAUSE)
So would you build an entire fence along the entire border, and would you have it be electrified?
(LAUGHTER)
CAIN: Allow me to give a serious answer. Yes, I believe we should secure the border for real, and it would be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas. I don't apologize at all for wanting to protect the American citizens and to protect our agents on the border, no.
(APPLAUSE)
Secondly, the second thing that I would do -- see, I believe in let's solve the whole problem. We must shut the back door so people can come in the front door. Secondly, promote the existing path to citizenship by cleaning up the bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.
Thirdly, enforce the laws -- the immigration laws that are already on the books. (APPLAUSE)
And here's another one of these bold ideas by the non-politician up here. Empower the states to do what the federal government is not doing in terms of enforcing those laws.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry, you have -- you have the -- your state has the longest border with Mexico. Is it possible -- to the question -- is it possible to build a fence, an -- across the entire border?
PERRY: Sure. You can -- you can build a fence, but it takes anywhere between 10 and 15 years and $30 billion. There's a better way, and that's to build a virtual defense zone, if you will, along that border, which -- not unlike what Herman's talking about, and you can do it with strategic fencing in the obvious places where it matters.
But the way you really stop the activities along that border that are illegal, whether it's the drug cartels or whether it's bringing in illegal weapons or whether it's illegal immigrants that are coming in, is to put boots on the ground.
I will tell you, Herman, you put a lot of boots on the ground. You use Predator drones that are being trained right up here at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada to use that real-time information to give those boots on the ground that information, and they can instantly move to those areas. And that is the way to shut that border down, to secure that border, and really make America safe from individuals, like those Iranians that are using the drug cartels to penetrate this country.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you agree with Governor Perry?
(APPLAUSE)
BACHMANN: Well, I think the person who really has a problem with illegal immigration in the country is President Obama. It's his uncle and his aunt who are illegal aliens...
(APPLAUSE)
... who've been allowed to stay in this country, despite the fact that they're illegal.
This last Saturday, I was the very first candidate that signed a pledge that said that, by a date certain, I will build a double-walled fence with -- with an area of security neutrality in between. I will build that, because this is what we know. This is an economics issue and a jobs issue. Every year...
COOPER: You're saying you would build a fence along the entire border? BACHMANN: I will build it on the entire border, and I'll tell you why. Every year, it costs this country $113 billion in the costs that we put out to pay for illegal aliens. It costs the state and local government of that amount $82 billion. For every household of an American citizen, it costs us $1,000 a year. We are robbing the household of Americans who can't afford that.
I will build the fence. I will enforce English as the official language of the United States government.
(APPLAUSE)
And every -- every person who comes into this country will have to agree that they will not receive taxpayer-subsidized benefits of any American citizen...
COOPER: Time.
BACHMANN: Thank you.
COOPER: Governor Perry, does that -- can you actually -- does that make sense? She says she can build the -- the fence along the entire border.
PERRY: As I said, you can build that fence, but by the time that fence gets built...
COOPER: She's also talking about your taxpayer-subsidized benefits.
PERRY: But my -- my point is that, by the time that fence gets built, there is a lot better way than to stand here and to -- to play to some group of people somewhere and say, "We're going to build a fence," and then wipe our hands of it.
I've been dealing with this border for 10 years as the governor. And the reason that we have this issue is because the federal government has failed miserably to defend and secure that border.
BACHMANN: Which is why we build...
(CROSSTALK)
PERRY: You know, for someone that's been in the United States Congress to -- to lecture me on the issues that are going on, on that border is not right. Let me tell you, we've had to deal with that issue in the state of Texas. We've had to deal with the impact on our state. And I put $400 million on that border of Texas, taxpayers' money, Texas Ranger recon teams there.
We know how to secure the border. I shared with you earlier how to do it. You put the boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air, and you secure that border.
COOPER: Governor...
BACHMANN: Anderson, can I respond?
COOPER: He wasn't talking about you directly.
BACHMANN: No, he did respond.
ROMNEY: Let's step back. I think it's important for us as Republicans on this stage to say something which hasn't been said. And that is I think every single person here loves legal immigration. We respect people who come here legally.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: And the reason we're so animated about stopping illegal immigration is there are 4.5 million people who want to come here who are in line legally, we want that to happen in an orderly and legal process.
And in terms of how to secure the border, it's really not that hard. You have a fence, you have enough Border Patrol agents to oversee the fence, and you turn off the magnets. And that's employers that hire people who they know are here illegally.
That's why you have an E-Verify system so they can know that. And, number two, you turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally. It is not that hard. We have to have the political will to get the job done.
And, Governor Perry, you say you have got the experience. It's a bit like saying that, you know, the college coach that has lost 40 games in a row has the experience to go to the NFL.
But the truth is, California -- I'll say it again, California and Florida have both had no increase in illegal immigration and yours is up 60 percent...
COOPER: Time.
ROMNEY: ... over the last 10 years.
COOPER: Governor Perry, 30 seconds to respond.
PERRY: Well, the bottom line is that we have a federal government that has failed. There is a clear problem here. And he hit the nail on the head a while ago. He said there was a magnet of people that will hire illegals. And you are number one on that list, sir.
And people need to understand that. You're one of the problems, Mitt.
COOPER: I think we've been down that road.
ROMNEY: Yes...
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: We've been down that road sufficiently. It sounds like the audience agrees with me.
COOPER: We are continuing on immigration. We have a question in the audience.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
ROBERT ZAVALA, LAS VEGAS RESIDENT: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. We have 50 million Latinos and not all of us are illegal. What is the message from you guys to our Latino community?
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich? President Obama got I think 67 percent of the Latino vote last time around.
GINGRICH: Look, I think that there's a very clear message to Americans of all backgrounds. Latinos, Korean-Americans, Vietnamese- Americans, there are hundreds of different groups who come to America.
As Governor Romney said, I think anybody who understands America has to be proud of our record as the country which has been the most open in history to legal immigration.
But the truth is most Latinos in the United States aren't immigrants. Most Latinos in the United States now have been born in the United States. And the fact is they want virtually exactly what everyone else wants.
They want an economy that is growing. They want a job that has take home pay. They want access to health insurance that they can afford. They want a chance to get educated that is actually useful and worthwhile. They want to be able to know that their family is going to grow up in safety. And they want to have a chance that their country is going to work to give their children and their grandchildren a better future.
I think we have to have the same message for every American of every ethnic background that we want to make America work again. And you'll know it's working because you will have a job and you'll have a chance to take care of your family.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Congressman Paul, there's some Latino voters who believe that some of these strong anti-immigration laws -- anti-illegal immigration laws are actually anti-Latino laws. What do you say to them?
PAUL: Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that. And I can understand why somebody might look at that. But when we approach this immigration problem, we should look at the incentives and that -- or the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate, you must give them free education.
You have to remove these incentives. But I don't think the answer is a fence whatsoever. But in order to attract Latino votes, I think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they're in groups, and then they reward people because they're in groups.
But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy, we wouldn't be talking about this. We need to se everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they're treated that way and they're never penalized that way.
So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away. As long as there's no abuse -- one place where there's still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. And I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system.
COOPER: Herman Cain, the 14th Amendment allows that anybody born in the United States is an American citizen. Should that change?
CAIN: I want to go back and answer this question first, OK? And that is, my message to Latinos, blacks, whites, and all Americans is that we must first start with significantly boosting this economy, which is on life support.
This is why I have put forth a very bold plan, and I'm not afraid to try and sell it to the American people. I'm not afraid to fight for it when I become president of the United States of America. So that's my message.
If we have this economy growing, people will be able to take care of their families and go after their American dream. And until we boost this economy, all of us are going to suffer for a long time.
COOPER: Then let me ask the question of Governor Perry.
Governor Perry, the 14th Amendment allows anybody. A child of illegal immigrants who is born here is automatically an American citizen. Should that change?
PERRY: Well, let me address Herman's issue that he just talked about.
COOPER: Actually, I'd rather you answer that question.
PERRY: I understand that. You get to ask the questions, I get to answer like I want to. And Herman talked about --
COOPER: That's actually a response, that's not an answer, but go ahead.
PERRY: -- the issue of how we get this country back working. And truly, the plan that I laid out last week, where we talk about the energy industry and this treasure trove that we have under this country, and we need to recognize that the administration that we have today is blocking mining that could be going on in the state of Nevada. I talked to Brian Sandoval before I came in here today. You have an administration that is killing jobs because they want to move us to a green energy. You have a secretary of energy who has basically said he wants to see gas prices up close to the European model. The president himself said electricity rates are necessarily going to skyrocket.
That's what we've got to stop. That's the reason we got to have a president of the United States that understands that if you get Americans working, and it addresses these issues that we have in this country, then the fastest way to do it is open up these federal --
COOPER: Time.
PERRY: -- plants, to pull back those regulations, and get America working again.
COOPER: Time.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: To the question on the 14th Amendment, do you support repealing the 14th Amendment?
PERRY: No.
COOPER: No, you do not?
PERRY: I do not.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, do you support it?
BACHMANN: I think there's a very real issue with magnets in this country. And I think the issue that you're referring to is the issue of anchor babies. And that's an issue that -- I was just in Arizona this last weekend, and the state is very concerned, because when someone comes illegally across the border, specifically for the purpose of utilizing American resources for having a baby here, then all of the welfare benefits then attach to that baby.
This is an issue that we don't have to deal with the Constitution. This is an issue that we can deal with legislatively. And there are a lot of Americans that would like us to deal with this issue of anchor babies legislatively.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: I'd like to address the issue that the gentleman brought up, which is, what are we going to say to the Latino community? And not one person mentioned the issue of family, faith, marriage.
This is a community that is a faith-filled community, that family is at the center of that community. I disagree in some respects with Congressman Paul, who says the country is founded on the individual.
The basic building block of a society is not an individual. It's the family. That's the basic unit of society.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And the Latino community understands that. They understand the importance of faith and marriage. They understand that bond that builds that solid foundation, and that inculcation of faith and religious freedom. And I think the Latino community knows that's at stake in this country.
There's a lot going on right now that's eroding our religious freedom, that's eroding the traditional values of marriage and family. And there's one candidate up here who consistently sounds that theme.
Look, I'm for jobs, too. I have got an economic plan, and I agree with everything that's been said. But we keep running roughshod over the fact that family in America and faith in America is being crushed by the courts and our government, and someone has stand up and fight for those institutions (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Time.
Congressman Paul, you were referenced directly. Thirty seconds.
PAUL: Well, I would like to explain that rights don't come in bunches. Rights come as individuals, they come from a God, and they come as each individual has a right to life and liberty.
But I might add about the border control and the Latino vote, is we lack resources there. I think we should have more border guards on it, a more orderly transition, and run it much better. But where are our resources?
You know, we worry more about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to bring the guard units home and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: We have a question in the audience.
QUESTION: My question for you is, do you support opening the national nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain?
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, we'll start with you.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: Sorry, go ahead.
GINGRICH: Look, we -- we worked on this when I was speaker. I think that it has to be looked at scientifically. But I think at some point we have to find a safe method of taking care of nuclear waste. And today, because this has been caught up in a political fight, we have small units of nuclear waste all over this country in a way that is vastly more dangerous to the United States than finding a method of keeping it in a very, very deep place that would be able to sustain 10,000 or 20,000 and 30,000 years of geological safety.
COOPER: Is Yucca Mountain that place?
GINGRICH: I'm not a scientist. I mean, Yucca Mountain certainly was picked by the scientific community as one of the safest places in the United States. It has always had very deep opposition here in Nevada. And, frankly...
COOPER: You were for opening it in Congress, right?
GINGRICH: Huh?
COOPER: When you were in the Congress, you were...
(CROSSTALK)
GINGRICH: When I was in Congress, frankly, I worked with the Nevada delegation to make sure that there was time for scientific studies. But we have to find some method of finding a very geologically stable place, and most geologists believe that, in fact, Yucca Mountain is that.
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you oppose this?
PAUL: Yes. Yes, I've -- I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was a time when I voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong.
But I think it's very serious. I think it's very serious. But quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then they assume this responsibility. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this. And then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage.
So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.
COOPER: Governor Romney, where do you stand on this?
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: Congressman Paul was right on that.
(APPLAUSE) I don't always agree with him, but I do on that. The -- the idea that 49 states can tell Nevada, "We want to give you our nuclear waste," doesn't make a lot of sense. I think the people of Nevada ought to have the final say as to whether they want that, and my guess is that for them to say yes to something like that, someone's going to have to offer them a pretty good deal, as opposed to having the federal government jam it down their throat.
(APPLAUSE)
And by the way, if -- if Nevada says, "Look, we don't want it," then let other states make bids and say, hey, look, we'll take it. Here's a geological site that we've evaluated. Here's the compensation we want for taking it. We want you electric companies around the country that are using nuclear fuel to compensate us a certain amount per kilowatt hour, a certain amount per ton of this stuff that comes.
Let -- let the free market work. And on that basis, the places that are geologically safe, according to science, and where the people say the deal's a good one will decide where we put this stuff. That's the right course for America.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Perry?
PERRY: You know, from time to time, Mitt and I don't agree. But on this one, he's hit it, the nail, right on the head. And I'll just add that when you think about France, who gets over 70 percent of their energy from nuclear power, the idea that they deal with this issue, that their glassification, and that the innovation -- and, Congressman Paul, you're correct when it comes to allowing the states to compete with each other. That is the answer to this.
We need to have a -- a -- a discussion in -- in this country about our 10th Amendment and the appropriateness of it, as it's been eroded by Washington, D.C., for all these many years, whether it's health care, whether it's education, or whether it's dealing with energy. We don't need to be subsidizing energy in any form or fashion, allow the states to make the decision. And some state out there will see the economic issue, and they will have it in their state.
COOPER: We're going to move on to an issue very important here in the state of Nevada and throughout the West. We have a question from the hall.
QUESTION: Yeah, my question is, those of us who own property here in Nevada have been devastated by the real estate bubble. What would you do as president to help fix the overall problem of real estate and foreclosures in America?
COOPER: Senator Santorum, Nevada has the highest rate of foreclosure. SANTORUM: Yeah, I mean, it's -- it's a situation right now where obviously the market's in -- has been decimated. And so now you're looking at, how do you repair it? The problem is -- in the first place, is that several people up here, the, quote, "businesspeople," supported the TARP, supported the bailout. Governors Perry, Romney...
PERRY: Wrong.
SANTORUM: No, you wrote a letter on the day of the vote -- you wrote a letter on the day of the vote, Governor, saying to vote for the plan. That's what you -- I mean, that -- the letter's been...
PERRY: No, I didn't.
SANTORUM: Yes, you did, Governor. You sent...
COOPER: You'll have a chance to respond. Let him finish.
SANTORUM: Joe Manchin signed it with you. So you -- you supported it. Governor Romney and Herman Cain all supported the -- the TARP program, which started this ball...
CAIN: Not all of it.
(LAUGHTER)
SANTORUM: I mean, I -- I mean, you guys complain about Governor Romney flip-flopping. I mean, look at what's going on here. I mean, the -- the bottom line is, you all supported it, you all started this ball rolling, where the government injected itself in trying to make -- trying to fix the market with the government top-down trying to do it, and (ph) managed decline. And what happened was, people who did things that were wrong invested in things, took risks, were bailed out, and the folks who acted responsibly are now getting hurt because their houses have gone down in value. We need to let the market work, and that's what hasn't been happening so far.
COOPER: I'm going to allow each of the three of you to respond.
Governor Perry, you have 30 seconds.
PERRY: The fact is, Rick just has that wrong. We wrote a letter to Congress asking them to act. What we meant by acting was, cut the regulations, cut the taxation burden, not passing TARP.
There is clearly a letter out of our office that says that, Rick. I'll get you a copy of it so you'll understand it.
SANTORUM: Hold on. I need to respond to that.
He sent a letter the day of the vote on the floor of the House saying, pass the economic plan. There was only one plan, and that was the plan that was voted on the floor. It was TARP.
You sent a letter on that day saying, vote for that plan. Now, you can send a letter later saying I didn't mean it, but when you said it, it was the only plan that was in play, and that was the TARP plan.
COOPER: Governor Perry -- do you want to respond, Governor Perry?
PERRY: I'm just telling you I know what we sent, I know what the intention was. You can read it any way you want, but the fact of the matter, I wasn't for TARP, and have talked about it for years since then.
COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: There's an effort on the part of people in Washington to think somehow they know better than markets, how to rebalance America's economy. And the idea of the federal government running around and saying, hey, we're going to give you some money for trading in your old car, or we're going to give you a few thousand bucks for buying a new house, or we're going to keep banks from foreclosing if you can't make your payments, these kind of actions on the part of government haven't worked.
The right course is to let markets work. And in order to get markets to work and to help people, the best we can do is to get the economy going. And that's why the fundamental restructuring I've described is so essential to help homeowners and people across this country.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Mr. Cain, I want you to be able to respond. Thirty seconds.
CAIN: I have said before that we were in a crisis at the end of 2008 with this potential financial meltdown. I supported the concept of TARP, but then, when this administration used discretion and did a whole lot of things that the American people didn't like, I was then against it. So yes, and I'm owning up to that.
Now, getting back to the gentleman's question in terms of what we need to do, we need to get government out of the way. It starts with making sure that we can boost this economy and then reform Dodd-Frank and reform a lot of these other regulations that have gotten in the way --
COOPER: Time.
CAIN: -- and let the market do it just like Mitt has talked about.
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, does the federal government have a role in keeping people in their homes, saving people from foreclosure, in the state of Nevada?
BACHMANN: That was the question that was initially asked. And what I want to say is this -- every day I'm out somewhere in the United States of America, and most of the time I'm talking to moms across this country. When you talk about housing, when you talk about foreclosures, you're talking about women who are at the end of their rope because they're losing their nest for their children and for their family. And there are women right now all across this country and moms across this country whose husbands, through no fault of their own, are losing their job, and they can't keep that house. And there are women who are losing that house.
I'm a mom. I talk to these moms.
I just want to say one thing to moms all across America tonight. This is a real issue. It's got to be solved.
President Obama has failed you on this issue of housing and foreclosures. I will not fail you on this issue. I will turn this country around.
We will turn the economy around. We will create jobs. That's how you hold on to your house.
Hold on, moms out there. It's not too late.
COOPER: We have another question. This one is a Twitter question.
"How do you explain the Occupy Wall Street movement happening across the country? And how does it relate with your message?"
Herman Cain, I've got to ask you, you said, -- two weeks ago, you said, "Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the big banks. If you don't have a job, and you're not rich, blame yourself."
That was two weeks ago. The movement has grown. Do you still say that?
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: Yes, I do still say that. And here's why.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: I still stand by my statement, and here's why.
They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies. Wall Street didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't do any good. Wall Street isn't going around the country trying to sell another $450 billion. They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration.
(APPLAUSE)
So I do stand by them.
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you've been -- Congressman Paul, you've been critical of Governor Romney for -- for holding fundraisers with -- with Wall Streeters. Do you think he understands what the protest is about? Do you understand?
PAUL: Well, I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can't blame the victims.
But we also have to point -- I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve.
(APPLAUSE)
They -- they create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that you can't solve these problems if you don't know where these bubbles come from.
But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? The big corporations of people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world's going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved.
But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Mr. Cain, do you want to respond? He referenced you. So if you want to respond, you have 30 seconds.
CAIN: All I want to say is that representative Paul is partly right, but he's mixing problems here. It's more than one problem. Look, the people -- the banks -- yes, the banks and the businesses on Wall Street, yes, the way that was administered was not right.
But my point is this: What are the people who are protesting want from bankers on Wall Street, to come downstairs and write them a check? This is what we don't understand. Take -- go and get to the source of the problem, is all I'm saying.
COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds.
CAIN: And that's the White House.
COOPER: And then we'll go to Governor Romney.
PAUL: Yes, the argument is it's -- the program was OK, but it was mismanaged. But I work on the assumption that government's not very capable of managing almost anything...
(APPLAUSE)
... so you shouldn't put that much trust in the government. You have -- you have to trust the marketplace. And when the government gets involved, they have to deal with fraud. And how many people have gone to jail either in the government, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, that participated in this? And nobody suffers the consequences. All these investigations, and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses, it's their fault, according -- that's why they're on Wall Street. And we can't blame them. We have to blame the business cycle...
COOPER: Time.
PAUL: ... and the economic policies that led to this disaster.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, you -- you originally called the protests "dangerous." You said it was class warfare. You recently sounded more sympathetic. Where do you stand now? What is your message to those people protesting?
ROMNEY: Look, we can spend our time talking about what happened three years ago and what the cause was of our collapse. But let's talk about what's happened over the last three years. We've had a president responsible for this economy for the last three years, and he's failed us.
He's failed us in part because he has no idea how the private sector works or how to create jobs. On every single issue, he's made it harder for our economy to reboot. And as a result, we have 25 million Americans out of work or stopped looking for work or in part- time work and can't get full-time employed. Home values going down. You have median income in America that in the last three years has dropped by 10 percent.
Americans are hurting across this country, and the president's out there campaigning. Why isn't he governing? He doesn't -- he doesn't have a jobs plan even now. This -- this is a critical time for America.
(APPLAUSE)
And I -- and I can tell you that this is time to have someone who understands how the economy works, who can get America working again. Instead of dividing and blaming, as this president is, let's grow America again and have jobs that are the envy of the world. And I know how to do it.
COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. We're going to continue on the other side. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: I'm Anderson Cooper, the western Republican presidential debate, live from the Venetian in Las Vegas. As you watch the debate tonight, send us your comments and questions for the candidates on Twitter. Use the hashtag #CNNDebate. Also contact us on Facebook and cnn.com.
When we come back, the right to bears and should a candidate's faith matter? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back to the CNN GOP debate live from the Venetian in Las Vegas. Let's continue. We've got an e-mail question that was left at cnnpolitics.com. This is from a Mike Richards who says: "With the controversy surrounding Robert Jeffress, is it acceptable to let the issue of a candidate's faith shape the debate?"
Senator Santorum, this is in reference to a Baptist pastor who, at the Values Voter Summit, after introducing Governor Rick Perry, said of -- said that "Mitt Romney is not a Christian," and that "Mormonism is a cult." Those were his words.
Should...
(BOOING)
COOPER: Should voters pay attention to a candidate's religion?
SANTORUM: I think they should pay attention to the candidate's values, what the candidate stands for.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: That's what is at play. And the person's faith -- and you look at that faith and what the faith teaches with respect to morals and values that are reflected in that person's belief structure. So that's -- those are important things.
I -- I'm a Catholic. Catholic has social teachings. Catholic has teachings as to what's right and what's wrong. And those are legitimate things for voters to look at, to say if you're a faithful Catholic, which I try to be -- fall short all the time, but I try to be -- and -- and it's a legitimate thing to look at as to what the tenets and teachings of that faith are with respect to how you live your life and -- and how you would govern this country.
With respect to what is the road to salvation, that's a whole different story. That's not applicable to what -- what the role is of being the president or a senator or any other job.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich, you agree with that?
GINGRICH: Well, I think if the question is, does faith matter? Absolutely. How can you have a country which is founded on truths which begins we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? How can you have the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which says religion, morality and knowledge being important, education matters. That's the order: religion, morality and knowledge.
Now, I happen to think that none of us should rush in judgment of others in the way in which they approach God. And I think that all of us up here I believe would agree. (APPLAUSE)
But I think all of us would also agree that there's a very central part of your faith in how you approach public life. And I, frankly, would be really worried if somebody assured me that nothing in their faith would affect their judgments, because then I'd wonder, where's your judgment -- how can you have judgment if you have no faith? And how can I trust you with power if you don't pray?
(APPLAUSE)
Who you pray to, how you pray, how you come close to God is between you and God. But the notion that you're endowed by your creator sets a certain boundary on what we mean by America.
COOPER: Governor Perry, Mitt Romney asked you to repudiate the comments of that pastor who introduced you on that stage. He didn't make the comments on the stage; he made them afterward in an interview. Will you repudiate those comments?
ROMNEY: Well, our faith -- I can no more remove my faith than I can that I'm the son of a tenant farmer. I mean, the issue, are we going to be individuals who stand by our faith? I have said I didn't agree with that individual's statement. And our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of -- of freedom of religion.
And this country is based on, as -- as Newt talked about, these values that are so important as we go forward. And the idea that we should not have our freedom of -- of religion to be taken away by any means, but we also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn't agree with it, Mitt, and I said so. But the fact is, Americans understand faith. And what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Time.
Governor Romney, is that -- is that acceptable to you?
ROMNEY: You know, with -- with regards to the disparaging comments about my faith, I've heard worse, so I'm not going to lose sleep over that.
(LAUGHTER)
What I actually found was most troubling in what the reverend said in the introduction was he said, in choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion. And someone who is a good moral person is not someone who we should select; instead, we should choose someone who subscribes to our religious belief.
That -- that idea that we should choose people based upon their religion for public office is what I find to be most troubling, because the founders of this country went to great length to make sure -- and even put it in the Constitution -- that we would not choose people who represent us in government based upon their religion, that this would be a nation that recognized and respected other faiths, where there's a plurality of faiths, where there was tolerance for other people and faiths. That's bedrock principle.
And it was that principle, Governor, that I wanted you to be able to, no, no, that's wrong, Reverend Jeffress. Instead of saying as you did, "Boy, that introduction knocked the ball out of the park," I'd have said, "Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong. We should select people not based upon their faith." Even though -- and I don't suggest you distance yourself from your faith any more than I would. But the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think, is a very dangerous and -- and enormous departure from the principles of our -- of our Constitution.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Would you still like him to say that?
(UNKNOWN): I'm sorry?
COOPER: Would -- would you still like the governor to say that? Or was that something you wanted him to...
ROMNEY: I'll let him -- that's his choice.
COOPER: Do you want to respond to that, Governor Perry?
PERRY: I have. I said I did not agree with the -- Pastor Jeffress's remarks. I don't agree with them. I -- I can't apologize any more than that.
ROMNEY: That's fine.
COOPER: We've got a question from the audience.
QUESTION: Currently, there's a deficit reduction measure to cut defense spending by $500 billion. Would you support such a reduction in defense spending? And if elected president, how will you provide a strong national defense?
COOPER: Congresswoman Bachmann, should defense be cut?
BACHMANN: Well, $500 billion is the amount that the questioner had mentioned. And don't forget, this was an historic week when it came to American foreign policy.
We saw potentially an international assassination attempt from Iran on American soil. That says something about Iran, that they disrespect the United States so much, that they would attempt some sort of heinous act like that.
Then, we saw the president of the United States engage American troops in a fourth conflict in a foreign land. This is historic.
Then, on Sunday, we heard the reports that now that -- in Iraq, the 5,000 troops that were going to be left there won't even be granted immunity by Iraq. This is how disrespected the United States is in the world today, and it's because of President Obama's failed policies.
He's taken his eyes off the number one issue in the world. That's an Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. That makes all of us in much danger.
COOPER: Time.
BACHMANN: And the president of Iran is a genocidal maniac. We need to stand up against Iran.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Congresswoman --
BACHMANN: And as president of the United States, I will. We will be respected again in the world.
COOPER: The question though was about budget cuts. And is everything on the table in terms of cutting the budget?
BACHMANN: Absolutely everything.
COOPER: So defense spending would be on the table, should be?
BACHMANN: Defense spending is on the table, but again, Anderson, now with the president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our Special Operations Forces in Africa.
COOPER: I just want to make sure. OK. It's on the table.
BACHMANN: It's on the table, but we cannot cut it by $500 billion. We can't do that to tour brave men and women who are on the ground fighting for us.
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: I mean, if you want to understand how totally broken Washington is, look at this entire model of the super committee, which has now got a magic number to achieve. And if it doesn't achieve the magic number, then we'll all have to shoot ourselves in the head so that when they come back with a really dumb idea to merely cut off our right leg, we'll all be grateful that they're only semi-stupid instead of being totally stupid.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Now, the idea that you have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country in both parties. The fact is, we ought to first figure out what threaten us, we ought to figure out what strategies will respond to that. We should figure out what structures we need for those strategies. We should then cost them.
I helped found the Military Reform Caucus. I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. But the fact is, to say I'm going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you've proposed --
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you just proposed eliminating the Departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Housing and Urban Development. You say it will save a trillion dollars in one year.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: You're proposing a 15 percent cut to the Defense Department. Can you guarantee national security will not be hurt by that?
PAUL: I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. And you have to get it straight. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense.
How does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We're broke. We have to borrow this money.
Why are we in Japan? Why do we subsidize Germany, and they subsidize their socialized system over there? Because we pay for it. We're broke.
And this whole thing that this can't be on the table, I'll tell you what, this debt bubble is the thing you better really worry about, because it's imploding on us right now. It's worldwide.
We are no more removed from this than man the man on the moon. It's going to get much worse.
And to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren't in so many places.
We have an empire. We can't afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what's happened throughout history, and we're doing it to ourselves.
The most recent empire to fail was an empire that went into, of all places, Afghanistan...
COOPER: Time.
PAUL: ... they went broke. So where are we? In Afghanistan. I say it's time to come home. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: It's time.
We have a Twitter question. Given that Israel has just negotiated with Palestine for a soldier, would any of you negotiate for a hostage?
Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al Qaeda had an American soldier in captivity, and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote: "I can see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer. Can you explain?
CAIN: The rest of the statement was quite simply, you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first, I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first.
Now being that you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I'm sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that.
So on the surface, I don't think we can say he did the right thing or not. A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.
COOPER: But you're saying you could -- I mean, in your words, you've said that I could see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer. Isn't that negotiating with, in this case, al Qaeda?
CAIN: I don't recall him saying that it was al Qaeda-related.
COOPER: Yes, he did. He said...
CAIN: Well, I don't really -- my policy will be we cannot negotiate with terrorists. That's where we have to start as a fundamental principle.
COOPER: Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Oh, absolutely not. I mean, you can't negotiate with terrorists, period.
To address Congressman Paul's answer and the other answer on military spending, I would absolutely not cut one penny out of military spending. The first order of the federal government, the only thing the federal government can do that no other level of government can do is protect us. It is the first duty of the president of the United States is to protect us.
(APPLAUSE)
SANTORUM: And we should have the resources -- we should have all the resources in place to make sure that we can defend our borders, that we can make sure that when we engage in foreign countries, we do so to succeed.
That has been the problem in this administration. We've had political objectives instead of objectives for success. And that's why we haven't succeeded. And as Michele said and correctly said, the central threat right now is Iran.
The disrespect, yes, but it's more than that. They sent a message. The two countries that they went after was the leader of the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia, and the leader of the, quote, "secular world," the United States.
This was a call by Iran to say we are the ones who are going to be the supreme leader of the Islamic world...
COOPER: Time.
SANTORUM: ... and we are going to be the supreme leader of the secular world. And that's why they attacked here. And, by the way, they did it in coordination...
COOPER: Time.
SANTORUM: ... with Central and South Americans, which I have been talking about and writing about and talking about for 10 years.
COOPER: Congressman Paul, you were referenced in that answer, 30 seconds.
PAUL: Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 150 bases -- 900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially.
And we want to spend more and more, and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something. Something real.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
PAUL: This budget is in bad shape and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever invading this country. Which country -- are they going to invade this country? They can't even shoot a missile at us.
COOPER: We have a question in the hall that gets to your question. The question in the hall on foreign aid? Yes, ma'am.
VICKI O'KEEFE, BOULDER CITY, NEVADA: The American people are suffering in our country right now. Why do we continue to send foreign aid to other countries when we need all the help we can get for ourselves?
COOPER: Governor Perry, what about that? I mean...
(APPLAUSE) PERRY: Absolutely. I think it's time for this country to have a very real debate about foreign aid. Clearly there are places. As a matter of fact, I think it's time for us to have a very serious discussion about defunding the United Nations.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
PERRY: When you think about -- when you think about the Palestinian Authority circumventing those Oslo Accords and going to New York to try to create the conflict and to have themselves approved as a state without going through the proper channels is a travesty.
And I think it's time not only to have that entire debate about all of our foreign aid, but in particular the U.N. Why are we funding that organization?
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, should foreign aid be eliminated?
ROMNEY: Foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, is to make sure that we are able to have the defense resources we want in certain places of the world. That probably ought to fall under the Department of Defense budget rather than a foreign aid budget.
Part of it is humanitarian aid around the world. I happen to think it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to borrow money from the Chinese to go give to another country for humanitarian aid. We ought to get the Chinese to take care of the people that are -- and think of that borrowed money on today (ph).
And finally there's a portion of our foreign aid that allows us to carry out our activities in the world such as what's happening in Pakistan where we're taking -- we're supplying our troops in Afghanistan through Pakistan.
But let me tell you: We're spending more on foreign aid than we ought to be spending. And Congressman Paul asked, is there a place we can cut the budget? Let me tell you where we cut the budget. Discretionary accounts you bring back to 2008 level. We get rid of Obamacare. Number three, we take Medicaid, turn it back to the states, grow it at only 1 percent to 2 percent per year. Number three, we cut -- number four, rather, we cut federal employment by at least 10 percent through attrition. And finally, we say to federal employees: You're not going to make more money than the people in the private sector who are paying for you. We link their compensation.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Time.
Congressman Paul?
PAUL: On foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. It's not authorized in the Constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war. Essentially, no well -- no matter how well-motivated it is...
COOPER: Congressman Paul, would you cut aid to Israel?
PAUL: I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don't think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. We're on a bankruptcy course.
And -- and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave to Egypt? I mean, their -- their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars, and now there's a more hostile regime in Egypt. And that's what's happening all around Israel. That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us. It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back. They should be able to deal with their neighbors...
COOPER: Time. Congresswoman Bachmann...
PAUL: ... at their own will.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Should we cut foreign aid to Israel?
BACHMANN: No, we should not be cutting foreign aid to Israel. Israel is our greatest ally. The biggest problem is the fact...
(APPLAUSE)
... that the president -- the biggest problem with this administration in foreign policy is that President Obama is the first president since Israel declared her sovereignty put daylight between the United States and Israel. That heavily contributed to the current hostilities that we see in the Middle East region.
Cutting back on foreign aid is one thing. Being reimbursed by nations that we have liberated is another. We should look to Iraq and Libya to reimburse us for part of what we have done to liberate these nations.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, I need to add something on this issue of negotiating for hostages. This is a very serious issue. For any candidate to say that they would release the prisoners at Guantanamo in exchange for a hostage would be absolutely contrary to the historical nature of the United States and what we do in our policy. That's naive; we cannot do that. The United States has done well because we have an absolute policy: We don't negotiate.
COOPER: Herman Cain, I've got to give you 30 seconds, because she was referring to -- basically saying you were naive or if -- if that's what you were suggesting. CAIN: No, I -- I said that I believe in the philosophy of we don't negotiate with terrorists. I think -- I didn't say -- I would never agree to letting hostages in Guantanamo Bay go. No, that wasn't -- that wasn't the intent at all.
But let me go back to this, if I could, very quickly in the time that I have left, the question that you asked about, foreign aid. My approach is an extension of the Reagan approach: Peace through strength, which is peace through strength and clarity. If we clarify who our friends are, clarify who our enemies are, and stop giving money to our enemies, then we ought to continue to give money to our friends, like Israel.
COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Congressman Paul, and then we've got to go.
PAUL: Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, I don't want to make a statement. I want to ask a question. Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.
SANTORUM: That's not -- Iran was a sovereign country. It was not a terrorist organization, number one.
PAUL: Oh, they were our good friends back then, huh?
SANTORUM: They're not our good friends. They're -- they're -- they're a sovereign country, just like the -- the Palestinian Authority is not the good friends of Israel.
PAUL: He negotiated for hostages.
SANTORUM: There's -- there's a role -- we negotiated with hostages (inaudible) the Soviet Union. We've negotiated with hostages, depending on the scale. But there's a difference between releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in response to a terrorist demand...
PAUL: But they're all suspects. They're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.
SANTORUM: Then -- then -- then negotiating with other countries, where we may have an interest, and that is certainly a proper role for the United States, too.
COOPER: We've got to take a quick break. I do want to give Speaker Gingrich 30 seconds, and then...
GINGRICH: Just very straightforward. Callista and I did a film on Ronald Reagan. There's a very painful moment in the film when he looks in the camera and says, "I didn't think we did this. I'm against doing it. I went back and looked. The truth is, we did. It was an enormous mistake."
And he thought the Iranian deals with a terrible mistake.
COOPER: We're going to take a short break. Our debate though continues on the other side of the break, so stay tuned.
When we return, which candidate has the best chance to beat Barack Obama, and should it matter in your vote?
Stay with us.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COOPER: And welcome back. The GOP debate is under way.
Let's talk about probably the most important issue to everybody on this stage, and probably just about everybody in this room, which is, who can beat President Barack Obama in this next election?
In today's new CNN/ORC poll, 41 percent of Republican voters think that Governor Romney has the best chance of beating the president.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: To Senator Santorum, you got one percent. Why shouldn't Republican voters go with the candidate they feel that can best beat President Obama?
SANTORUM: Well, the Pew poll last week asked how many people in this country can name any of us? And less than 50 percent could come up with even one. So, the idea that this has any relevance to people who aren't paying close attention to this debate is, in fact, irrelevant. What's relevant is to look at the track record.
No one in this field has won a swing state. Pennsylvania is a swing state. We win Pennsylvania, we win the election. The Republicans nominate it.
I've won it twice. I defeated a Democratic incumbent, winning it the first time, and I won the state of Pennsylvania, the only senator to win a state who was a conservative that George Bush lost. Bush lost it by 5, I won it by 6.
So, you have someone who is defeated and been matched up against three Democratic incumbents. I'm 3-0.
Nobody in this field has won a major race against a Democratic incumbent except me. No one has won a swing state except me as a conservative.
I didn't run as a Democrat in Texas when it was popular, won and win there. I didn't run as a liberal in 1994. I ran in 1994, the same year Mitt did in Massachusetts. He ran as a liberal, to the left of Kennedy, and lost. I ran as a conservative against James Carville and Paul Begala, and I won.
In 2002, he ran as a moderate. He ran as a moderate in -- in Massachusetts. I ran for re-election having sponsored and passed welfare reform, having authored the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.
COOPER: Time.
SANTORUM: I was a -- a moral conservative, I was a foreign policy conservative...
COOPER: Time, Senator.
SANTORUM: ... I was a fiscal conservative, and I got elected in a state that hasn't elected a president since 1988 as a Republican.
COOPER: Thank you.
Governor Romney, I've got to give you 30 seconds, since he referenced you.
ROMNEY: I think the people of America are looking for someone who can beat President Obama and can get the country on the right track. And I believe that they've recognized that if they elect someone who's spent their life in politics that they're not going to be able to post up well against President Obama and convince the American people of the truth of the -- of the principles that we believe in.
I believe that, having spent my life in the private sector, having actually created jobs is what allows me to have the kind of support that's going to allow me to replace President Obama and get the country on the right track again. That, for me, is a distinguishing feature that's going to get me elected as the president of the United States.
COOPER: Governor...
(APPLAUSE)
Governor Perry, was he referring to you?
PERRY: If you want to know how someone's going to act in the future, look how they act in the past. I mean, so, Mitt, while you were the governor of Massachusetts in that period of time, you were 47th in the nation in job creation. During that same period of time, we created 20 times more jobs. As a matter of fact, you'd created 40,000 jobs total in your four years. Last two months, we created more jobs than that in Texas.
What we need is someone who will draw a bright contrast between themselves and President Obama. And let me tell you one thing: I will draw that bright contrast.
COOPER: I've got to give you 30 seconds. Governor Romney?
ROMNEY: Yeah. With regards to track record in the past, Governor, you were the chairman of Al Gore's campaign, all right?
(LAUGHTER) And there was a fellow -- there was a fellow Texan named George Bush running. So if we're looking at the past, I think we know where you were.
Secondly, our unemployment rate I got down to 4.7 percent, pretty darn good. I think a lot of people would be happy to have 4.7 percent. And with regards...
(APPLAUSE)
With regards to the -- to the record -- to the record in Texas, you probably also ought to tell people that if you look over the last several years, 40 percent, almost half the jobs created in Texas were created for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.
PERRY: That is an absolute falsehood on its face, Mitt.
COOPER: You have 30 seconds, Governor Perry.
ROMNEY: It's actually -- it's actually...
PERRY: That is -- that is absolutely incorrect, sir.
ROMNEY: Well, take a look at the study.
PERRY: There's a third -- there's been a third party take a look at that study, and it is absolutely incorrect. The fact is, Texas has led the nation in job creation. eBay and Facebook and Caterpillar didn't come there because there weren't jobs and there wasn't an environment to be created.
That's what Americans are looking for. They're looking for somebody that they trust, that knows has the executive governing experience. I've got it. You failed as the governor of Massachusetts.
COOPER: I've got to give Governor Romney 30 seconds. He said you failed.
(BOOING)
ROMNEY: I'm very proud of the fact -- actually, during the four years we were both governors, my unemployment rate in Massachusetts was lower than your unemployment rate in Texas. That's number one.
Number two, getting it down to 4.7, I'm pretty happy with. We worked very hard to balance our budget, did every year, put in place a rainy-day fund of $2 billion by the time I was finished.
And I'll tell you this, the American people would be happy for an individual who can lead the country who's actually created jobs, not just watching them get created by others, but someone who knows how the economy works because he's been in it. I have. I've created jobs. I'll use that skill to get America working again. That's what we want.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Herman Cain, you're -- Herman Cain, you're tied with Governor Romney in some of the polls for the top leadership position right now. Is a -- are they the ones -- are either Governor Perry or Governor Romney, are they the ones who should be president?
CAIN: No, I should be president.
COOPER: Well, obviously.
(APPLAUSE)
CAIN: Governor Romney has a very distinguished career, and I would agree with much of what he has said. And there's one difference between the two of us in terms of our experience. With all due respect, his business executive experience has been more Wall Street- oriented; mine has been more Main Street.
I have managed small companies. I've actually had to clean the parking lot. I've worked with groups of businesses, et cetera.
And as far as contrasting me with President Obama, if I am fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, it's going to be the problem-solver who fixes stuff versus the president who hasn't fixed anything in this country.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: Governor Romney, you've got 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: I -- I appreciate that. And probably the fact that we're doing as well as we are is we both have a private-sector background. That probably helps.
But I just want to set the record state on my record -- record straight on my record. I've been chief executive officer four times, once for a start-up and three times for turnarounds. One was a financial services company. That was the start-up. A -- a consulting company, that's a mainstream business. The Olympics, that's certainly mainstream. And, of course, the state of Massachusetts. In all those settings, I've learned how to create jobs.
COOPER: Your campaigns are telling us we have to end. It's time...
(CROSSTALK)
BACHMANN: Oh, no, no, no...
GINGRICH: Wait a second.
COOPER: Sorry.
BACHMANN: Anderson, Anderson, that is...
COOPER: It's your campaigns. I'm... BACHMANN: Anderson...
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: If you want to defy your campaigns, go ahead. Congresswoman Bachmann, 30 seconds.
BACHMANN: Anderson -- Anderson, the good news is, the cake is baked. Barack Obama will be a one-term president; there's no question about that.
(APPLAUSE)
Now the question is, we need to listen to Ronald Reagan who said no pastels, bold colors. I am the most different candidate from Barack Obama than anyone on this stage.
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?
BACHMANN: We can't settle in this race.
COOPER: Speaker Gingrich?
GINGRICH: Let me -- let me just point out for a second that maximizing bickering is probably not the road to the White House.
(APPLAUSE)
And the -- the technique you've used maximizes going back and forth over and over again.
I just want to say two things. I think that I would be the strongest candidate because of sheer substance, if you go to newt.org and look at the 21st Century Contract with America. As the nominee, I will challenge Obama to meet the Lincoln-Douglas standard of seven three-hour debate, no time -- no moderator, only a timekeeper. I believe we can defeat him decisively to a point where we re-establish a conservative America on our values. And I think that is a key part of thinking about next year.
COOPER: We'd love to host those on CNN.
I want to thank all the candidates, the GOP candidates tonight.
(APPLAUSE)
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: I want to thank all the candidates for a spirited debate on the stage. We also want to thank our co-sponsors, the Western Republican Leadership Conference, our host, the Sands Convention Center at the Venetian. Our coverage of "America's Choice 2012" continues right now here on CNN.

Tonight Bloomberg and the Washington Post will be conducting yet another worthless GOP debate. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others.
Participants: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Questions will be asked by Karen Tumulty, Charlie Rose, and Julianna Goldman.
Suggested reading: debates for past examples of bogus debates and each of the names in the last paragraph except for the last two.UPDATE: A transcript is here. The debate was just about economics. There's no mention of immigration, which is a disservice to the U.S. due to the fact that immigration is a fundamental issue that impacts the U.S. and state economies in various ways.

Tonight Fox News will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with Youtube, with some of the questions to be asked having been submitted via Youtube. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available. This debate stands to be just as bad and as much of a public disservice as all the others, especially considering the involvement of Youtube.
Participants: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson. Note that the last two major debates didn't include Johnson.
Suggested reading: debates for past examples of bogus debates; popular voting systems for an explanation of the flawed system Youtube uses to choose the questions that are asked; Youtube corporate and Google corporate for past bogus debates they've been involved in and their other political activities; and each of the names in the last paragraph.UPDATE: I only saw the immigration portion of the debate, and that was just as bad as I predicted. Chris Wallace asked weak questions and then the candidates responded with their stock speeches, in at least Bachmann's case not even bothering to come close to answering the weak question. Wallace had no followups that I saw. A question from FAIR was incredibly weak (asking candidates if they support eVerify) when there are countless other, far tougher questions that they could have asked.
I can't stress just how dangerous this is to the U.S. These people want to be president of the U.S., and they're being asked questions that are far weaker than a candidate for an intern position at Youtube would be asked. The way around that is to support policy debates using the plan outlined at the link, a plan I posted here almost four years ago. If you want the best candidate for president - even if you need to put partisanship aside - support that plan, post it to social sharing sites, and tweet it to hacks at media organizations like Youtube and Fox.
As for the supposed debate, the key immigration part appears to have been Santorum castigating Perry over immigration. Perry said this about the bill he supported that gives in-state tuition to illegal aliens:

"If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no reason than they've been brought there, by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart... I still support it greatly."

See DREAM Act for the federal version; the state versions such as that in Texas have the same effect of taking educational resources away from U.S. citizens to give them to illegal aliens.
Santorum responded like this:

"You're sort of making this leap that unless the taxpayers subsidize it they won't be able to go... The point is, why are we subsidizing this? … Why should they be given preferential treatment as an illegal in this country? ...Yes, I would say that [Perry] is soft on illegal immigration."

Tonight CNN will be conducting a GOP debate in conjunction with the Teaparty Express organization. Feel free to leave comments below before, during or after the debate. This post will be updated after a transcript becomes available.
Participants: Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum.
Suggested reading: Tea Party Patriots admit immigration "isn't an issue for us", all the dozens of other posts showing why the tea parties are a pernicious group, the links in the list of candidates above, CNN, Wolf Blitzer, debates, and some questions in my Twitter feed: @24AheadDotCom_ . There's no chance at all that CNN is going to really press any of the candidates on anything that would make the establishment uncomfortable, specifically immigration and trade. Nor is there any chance that CNN will really press them on the fringe, LibertarianLite ideas of the teapartiers.UPDATE: I listed the wrong set of tools earlier: CNN joined with the Teaparty Express, not the Teaparty "Patriots". The former group is even more transparently bogus than the second, and many fervent teapartiers don't consider Express to be an echt group at all due to them being controlled by a GOP operative.UPDATE 2: This was, as I predicted, yet another CNN disgrace. One of the questions from a teapartier simply asked the candidates "My question is, what would you do to get the economy moving forward? Do you have a plan? And, if so, what is it?" They already have plans: those plans are on their websites, they've discussed the plans in speeches, and those like Bachmann are legislators with a long public record to the present day. The teapartier who asked that question simply wasted everyone's time. That question might be important to her, but what's important to the U.S. is that we find out the details and downsides of their plans. To a teapartier, what's important to the U.S. doesn't matter all that much. And, of course, asking candidates such worthless questions allows CNN to avoid asking tough questions.
An equally bad question was asked by yet another teapartier: "What would you to do remove the illegal immigrants from our country?" First, they're illegal aliens, not immigrants. Second, that question is a bit "harsh". And, third, the question simply allowed the candidates to launch into stock speeches. Which does a better service to the U.S.: someone who doesn't know that much about immigration asking questions, or someone who does asking questions?
In his response to the teapartier, Santorum didn't exactly answer how he intends to reduce the number of illegal aliens in the U.S., he just supported immigration enforcement until the border is secure. Then, apparently he'd be open to some form of legalization (see comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty).
Then, Perry simply discussed border enforcement, without discussing what if anything he intends to do about those illegal aliens already here. He also came out yet again against a full border fence. Santorum was then asked how he intends to attract Latino voters. Instead of challenging the assumption of voting one's race, Santorum brought up Rick Perry's plan to give illegal aliens in-state tuition. He made a (probably intentional) gaffe: "Maybe that was an attempt to attract the illegal vote -- I mean, the Latino voters. " Which isn't smart because it will be used against him rather than simply playing it straight (assuming it was intentional).
Then, Rick Perry played the race card, twice:

PERRY: In the state of Texas, if you've been in the state of Texas for three years, if you're working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there.
And the bottom line is it doesn't make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way. No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that's what we've done in the state of Texas. And I'm proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.
BLITZER: You heard some boos there. But go ahead, Congresswoman Bachmann, is that basically the DREAM Act that President Obama wants as well?
BACHMANN: Yes, it's very similar. And I think that the American way is not to give taxpayer subsidized benefits to people who have broken our laws or who are here in the United States illegally. That is not the American way. Because the immigration system in the United States worked very, very well up until the mid-1960s when liberal members of Congress changed the immigration laws.
What works is to have people come into the United States with a little bit of money in their pocket legally with sponsors so that if anything happens to them, they don't fall back on the taxpayers to take care of them. And then they also have to agree to learn the speak the English language, learn American history and our constitution. That's the American way.
BLITZER: I'm going to bring Governor Huntsman here. But go ahead, Governor Perry.
PERRY ; I'm not for the DREAM Act that they are talking about in Washington D.C. that is amnesty. What we did in the state of Texas was clearly a states right issue. And the legislature passed with only four dissenting votes in the House and the Senate to allow this to occur.
We were clearly sending a message to young people, regardless of what the sound of their last name is, that we believe in you. That if you want to live in the state of Texas and you want to pursue citizenship, that we're going to allow you the opportunity to be contributing members in the state of Texas and not be a drag on our state.

What Perry supports results in illegal aliens taking college slots and discounts away from U.S. citizens. He's presenting not doing that as racial, when it's a simply matter of being more loyal to your fellow citizens than to foreign citizens. Needless to say, neither Blitzer nor the other candidates called him on that. It's true that the DREAM Act grants amnesty unlike state laws, but the impact on U.S. citizens vis-a-vis depriving them of college is similar.
Then, Huntsman accused Perry of treason:

BLITZER: Hold on a second, Governor Huntsman, you also signed legislation in Utah that gave driving privileges to illegal immigrants. Was that a good idea?
HUNTSMAN: Well, first of all, let me say for Rick to say that you can't secure the border I think is pretty much a treasonous comment.
MALE: I didn't hear that.
HUNTSMAN: Rick, we can secure the border. We can secure the border through means of fences, through technology, through the deployment of our National Guard troops, we can get it done. In fact, when the elected president of the United States, I would work with you and the other three border governors to ensure that through your law enforcement officials you can verify that that border is secure.
But I will tell you before Wolf here directs a question, they were given a driver's license before and they were using that for identification purposes. And I thought that was wrong. Instead we issued a driver privilege card, which in our state allowed our economy to continue to function. And it said in very bold letters, not to be used for identification purposes. It was a pragmatic local government driven fix and it proved that the tenth amendment works.
We believe in local fixes and solutions.

The bottom line is that the law Huntsman supported enabled illegal immigration, and to help his state's economy.
Then, there was this bit of fantasy from Romney:

BLITZER: All right. Governor Romney, do you have a problem with either what Governor Huntsman did in Utah or Governor Perry did in Texas?
ROMNEY: yeah with both, actually. The question began by saying how do we attract Latino voters. And the answer is by telling them what they know in their heart, which is they or their ancestors did not come here for a handout. If they came here for a handout, they'd be voting for Democrats. They came here for opportunity and freedom. And that's what we represent. And that's why we'll win collecting support from Latinos across the country.
With regards to illegal immigration, of course we build a fence and of course we do not give instate tuition credits to people who come here illegally. That only attracts people to come here and take advantage of America's great beneficence.
And with regards to giving driver's licenses to people that are here illegally, that creates a patina of legal status. There are sanctuary cities in some parts of the country.
One of the things I did in my state was to say, look, I'm going to get my state police authorized to be able to enforce immigration laws and make sure those people who we arrest are put in jail, to find out they're here illegally, we're going to get them out of here.
We have to recognize that this is the party that believes in supporting the law. We're going to enforce the law. We're the party of opportunity, we're also the party of legal law abiding citizens. And that's something we're going to attract people of all backgrounds.

Few people come here just to go on the dole. However, Hispanics as a whole are very supportive of social welfare spending. Some Hispanics (Cuban-Americans) are rightwing-leaning, others aren't (Mexican-Americans). The latter makes up the bulk of Hispanics in the U.S., and it's foolish for Romney to pretend otherwise. The rest of Romney's comment isn't that bad, it's just not strong enough and it's not clear whether he actually believes in any of that strongly.
Then:

PERRY: As I said it earlier, we basically had a decision to make. Are we going to give people an incentive to be contributing members of this society or are we going to tell them no, we're going to put you on the government dole? In the state of Texas, and this is a states right issue, if in Massachusetts you didn't want to do that or Utah you didn't want to do this, that's fine. But in the state of Texas where Mexico has a clear and a long relationship with this state, we decided it was in the best interest of those young people to give them the opportunity to go on to college and to have the opportunity. They're pursuing citizenship in this country rather than saying, you know, we're going to put you over here and put you on the government dole for the rest of your life. We don't think that was the right thing to do. And it's working. And it's working well in the state of Texas.

That's a false choice. As detailed here for years, Perry and other border state governors could have easily pressed DC to increase immigration enforcement just as Jan Brewer has done over the last year or so. The last thing Perry would want is to shut down the flow of cheap labor from Mexico which benefits his benefactors.
Finally in the immigration segment:

BLITZER: I know you want to respond, too, because he said that what you did in Utah was a mistake giving driving privileges to illegal immigrants.
HUNTSMAN: I think we can spend all night talking about where Mitt's been on all the issues of the day. And that would take forever. But let me just say that all the Latino voters, Hispanic voters want is opportunity, can we say that? The greatest thing that we can do for the people in this country is -- on illegal immigration is fix homeland security.
I mean, when are we going to have an honest conversation in this country about the root causes. We can't process people. The H1B visa process is broken. We need to bring in brain power to this country to shore up our economic might. We need to bring in foreign capital to raise real estate prices as well.
We need a fixed Department of Homeland Security.

See skilled immigration and H1B. And, as mentioned above, the opportunity that most Hispanics want may not be consistent with GOP principles: most will support a strong redistributionist policy rather than the go-it-alone spirit of the current GOP. As for the last line, apparently Huntsman wants to relive the mortgage mess.UPDATE 3: The earlier debate video went away, so I added a video of the full debate.UPDATE 4: Trying yet another video. Other videos at peekURL.com/vZnGW9c and peekURL.com/vaEdPya .

Tonight's the night for the first major GOP debate, sponsored by Politico and NBC News and featuring Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. I'll replace this text with a discussion of the immigration portions of the debate after a transcript becomes available. In the meantime, see each of those links for background information, and feel free to leave comments on the debate below. I predict that any immigration questions that are asked will be weak and the candidates will be able to dance around them.UPDATE: Video added, together with a transcript of the immigration segment
1. The immigration questions were asked by Jose Diaz Balart of Telemundo, brother of massive/illegal immigration fans Lincoln Diaz Balart and Mario Diaz Balart. They're Cuban-American, but most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are from Mexico. And, those most concerned about continued illegal immigration are not professional racial power boosters like the Diaz-Balarts, but non-Hispanic Americans. Apparently MSNBC thinks only Hispanics are concerned about and qualified to ask about immigration.
2. As I predicted, the questions asked were incredibly weak. The answers to those questions could have been more easily obtained by looking at the candidates' previous statements and websites. Apparently MSNBC doesn't have web access or something and couldn't ask the follow-up questions that would reveal the flaws in the candidates' plans. Or, they didn't want to try to reveal those flaws and are generally happy with a group of (let's face it) stiffs.
3. The weakest candidate of those asked about immigration was Jon Huntsman. However, all of the rest come in a close second. All of them would - after the secure the border charade - support some form of comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty). None of them are strong opponents of "reform", amnesty, legalization, regularization, or whatever term you want to use. None of them are even willing to support attrition: enforcing our immigration laws now to encourage illegal aliens to return home.
If you want to help force the candidates to support attrition - instead of "secure the border and then we'll discuss amnesty" - there's only one solution: use the question authority plan and find smart, experienced lawyers to cross-examine them on their policies. Otherwise, if one of them wins, they'll push amnesty (to one degree or another) just like George W Bush did.
---------- TRANSCRIPT --------------
WILLIAMS: I want to introduce another line of questioning by introducing yet another colleague of ours, Jose Diaz-Balart, from our sister network Telemundo.
Hey, my friend, how are you?
DIAZ-BALART: Good evening. Nice to see you all. Nice to see you all.
I want to talk about a subject that was very dear to the heart of President Reagan, which is immigration reform.
As you know, he was the last U.S. President to sign immigration reform in 1986. All of you, I think, have said that you don't think immigration reform should be discussed until the border is secure.
And, Governor, I'd like to ask you, border state governor, what specifically, in your mind, would make the border secure?
PERRY: Well, the first thing you need to do is have boots on the ground. We've had a request in to this administration since June — or January of 2009 for 1,000 border patrol agents or National Guard troops, and working towards 3,000 border patrol. That's just on the Texas border.
There's another 50 percent more for the entire Mexican border. So you can secure the border, but it requires a commitment of the federal government of putting those boots on the ground, the aviation assets in the air.
We think predator drones could be flown, that real-time information coming down to the local and the state and the federal law enforcement. And you can secure the border. And at that particular point in time, then you can have an intellectually appropriate discussion about immigration reform.
For the President of the United States to go to El Paso, Texas, and say that the border is safer than it's ever been, either he has some of the poorest intel of a president in the history of this country, or he was an abject liar to the American people. It is not safe on that border.
DIAZ-BALART: Governor, specifically, do you agree or disagree with some of the issues that the governor of Texas says, as far as what you would consider enough to be able to declare the border safe?
ROMNEY: Well, first, we ought to have a fence. Secondly…
DIAZ-BALART: The whole fence, 2,600 miles?
ROMNEY: Yes. We got to — we got to have a fence, or the technologically approved system to make sure that we know who's coming into the country, number one.
Number two, we ought to have enough agents to secure that fence and to make sure that people are coming over are caught.
But the third thing, and I learned this when I was with border patrol agents in San Diego, and they said, look, they can always get a ladder to go over the fence. And people will always run to the country. The reason they come in such great numbers is because we've left the magnet on.
And I said, what do you mean, the magnet? And they said, when employers are willing to hire people who are here illegally, that's a magnet, and it draws them in. And we went in and talked about sanctuary cities, giving tuition breaks to the kids of illegal aliens, employers that, employers that knowingly hire people who are here illegally. Those things also have to be stopped.
If we want to secure the border, we have to make sure we have a fence, technologically, determining where people are, enough agents to oversee it, and turn off that magnet. We can't talk about amnesty, we cannot give amnesty to those who have come here illegally.
We've got 4.7 million people waiting in line legally. Let those people come in first, and those that are here illegally, they shouldn't have a special deal.
(APPLAUSE)
HARRIS: Speaker Gingrich, your perception on immigration reform? And you've been, I think, in some ways, a little different on your initial positions.
GINGRICH: I think we have to find a way to get to a country in which everybody who's here is here legally. But you started by referencing President Reagan.
In 1986, I voted for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, which in fact did grant some amnesty in return for promises. President Reagan wrote in his diary that year that he signed the act because we were going to control the border and we were going to have an employer program where it was a legal guest worker program. That's in his diary.
I'm with President Reagan. We ought to control the border, we ought to have a legal guest worker program. We ought to outsource it, frankly, to American Express, Visa, and MasterCard, so there's no counterfeiting, which there will be with the federal government. We should be very tough on employers once you have that legal program.
We should make English the official language of government. We should insist –
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: We should insist that first-generation immigrants who come here learn American history in order to become citizens. We should also insist that American children learn American history.
And then find a way to deal with folks who are already here, some of whom, frankly, have been here 25 years, are married with kids, live in our local neighborhood, go to our church. It's got to be done in a much more humane way than thinking that to automatically deport millions of people.
HARRIS: Senator, your solution?
SANTORUM: Well, my solution is very similar to Newt Gingrich's.
Look, I'm the son of an Italian immigrant. I think immigration is one of the great things that has made this country the dynamic country that it continues to be, people who are drawn because of the ideals of this country. And so we should not have a debate talking about how we don't want people to come to this country, but we want them to come here like my grandfather and my father came here.
They made sacrifices. They came in the 1920s. There were no promises. There were no government benefits.
They came because they wanted to be free and they wanted to be good law-abiding citizens. So we have to have a program in place that sets that parameter that says, you're going to come to this country, come here according to the rules. It's a very good first step that the first thing you do here is a legal act, not an illegal act.
HARRIS: A quick follow-up, 30 seconds.
So there are 11 million people that — fait accompli. They're here. What do you do with them if you are able to secure the border?
SANTORUM: Well, I think we can have the discussion, that whether what we do with people, how long they've been here, whether they had other types of records. But to have that discussion right now and pull the same trick that was pulled in 1986 — we said, well, we'll promise to do this if you do that — no more. We are going to secure the border first, and that's the most important thing to do, then we'll have the discussion afterwards.
HARRIS: Congresswoman, you said the fence — that you believe the fence is fundamental as an integral part of controlling the border. Let's say that in 2012 or 2013, there's a fence, the border is secure, gasoline is $2 a gallon.
What do you do then with 11 million people, as the Speaker says, many of whom have U.S.-born children here? What do you do?
BACHMANN: Well, again, understand the context and the problem that we're dealing with.
In Mexico right now, we're dealing with narco terrorists. This is a very serious problem. To not build a border or a fence on every part of that border would be, in effect, to yield United States sovereignty not only to our nation anymore, but to yield it to another nation. That we cannot do.
One thing that the American people have said to me over and over again — and I was just last week down in Miami. I was visiting the Bay of Pigs Museum with Cuban-Americans. I was down at the Versailles Cafe. I met with a number of people, and it's very interesting. The Hispanic-American community wants us to stop giving taxpayer- subsidized benefits to illegal aliens and benefits, and they want us to stop giving taxpayer-subsidized benefits to their children as well.
HARRIS: A quick 30-second rebuttal on the specific question.
The fence is built, the border is under control. What do you do with 11.5 million people who are here without documents and with U.S.- born children?
BACHMANN: Well, that's right. And again, it is sequential, and it depends upon where they live, how long they have been here, if they have a criminal record. All of those things have to be taken into place.
But one thing that we do know, our immigration law worked beautifully back in the 1950s, up until the early 1960s, when people had to demonstrate that they had money in their pocket, they had no contagious diseases, they weren't a felon. They had to agree to learn to speak the English language, they had to learn American history and the Constitution.
And the one thing they had to promise is that they would not become a burden on the American taxpayer. That's what we have to enforce.
HARRIS: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
HARRIS: Mr. Cain?
CAIN: Let's make sure — let's solve all of the problems. It's not one problem.
I do believe we can secure the border with a combination of boots on the ground, technology, and a fence, but we've got three other problems. And to get to it, we've got to secure the border.
Secondly, let's promote the path to citizenship that's already there. We don't need a new one, we just need to clean up the bureaucracy that's slowing the process down and discouraging people.
The third thing we need to do, enforce the laws that are there, and the way we do it, empower the states. I believe that the people closest to the problem are the best ones to be able to solve that problem. Empower the states to do what the federal government hasn't done, can't do, and won't do. This is how we solve the entire problem.
HARRIS: Thank you.
Governor?
HUNTSMAN: I would just have to say that I agree with so much of what has been said here today.
President Reagan, when he made his decision back in 1987, he saw this as a human issue. And I hope that all of us, as we deal with this immigration issue, will always see it as an issue that resolves around real human beings.
Yes, they came here in an illegal fashion. And yes, they should be punished in some form or fashion.
I have two daughters that came to this country, one from China, one from India, legally. I see this issue through their eyes.
We can find a solution. If President Reagan were here, he would speak to the American people and he would lay out in hopeful, optimistic terms how we can get there, remembering full well that we're dealing with human beings here. We have to agree.
But let me just say one thing about legal immigration. Let's not lose sight of the fact that our legal immigration system is broken. And if we want to do something about attracting brain power to this country, if we want to lift real estate values.
For example, why is it that Vancouver is the fastest-growing real estate market in the world today? They allow immigrants in legally, and it lifts all votes (ph). And we need to focus as much on legal immigration.
HARRIS: Congressman, your thoughts?
PAUL: Obviously, it's a very big problem. I think we need to remove the incentive — easy road to citizenship. Nobody has mentioned the fact that they qualify for benefits as well, you know, the welfare benefits. We shouldn't have to give — the state of Texas shouldn't be forced to provide free health care and free education.
But there is a mess down there, and it's a big mess. And it's the drug war that's going on there. And our drug laws are driving this. So now we're killing thousands and thousands of people. That makes it much more complicated. But the people who want big fences and guns, sure, we can secure the borders — a barbed-wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick.
I don't believe that's what America is all about. I just really don't.
We can enforce our law. If we had a healthy economy, this wouldn't be such a bad deal. People are worrying about jobs. But every time you think about this toughness on the border and I.D. cards and real ideas, think that it's a penalty against the American people, too.
I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to lead (ph) with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.